Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (KING'S LYNN) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Development Areas (Employment)

Mr. Dance: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will publish details of the projects to create additional employment in development areas during the winter months for which expenditure of £10 million was authorised on 15th October, 1968; and how many additional jobs were created in such projects.

The Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore): Details of expenditure on the main types of project in Scotland and the Northern Region were given in the reply by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) on 3rd December, 1968.—[Vol. 774, c. 456.] I will circulate corresponding details for Wales in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The programme was expected to provide roughly some 8,000 jobs.

Mr. Dance: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this expenditure serves its purpose and is justified?

Mr. Shore: It succeeded in providing a useful number of additional jobs in areas where unemployment was exceptionally high.

The information is as follows:


Wales
(£',000)


Roads
2,130


Schools
300


Hospitals
200


Other
170

Intermediate Areas (Hunt Report)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he expects to be in a position to make his further statement on the Government's regional policy.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now make a statement on the boundaries of the intermediate areas in Yorkshire and Humberside.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will now state which areas of Yorkshire and Humberside are to be scheduled for special assistance on the lines of the Hunt Committee's Report.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he intends to announce the exact boundaries of the intermediate areas which will enjoy special assistance in accordance with the decisions of the Government on the Hunt Report.

Mr. Shore: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement yesterday.—[Vol. 785, c. 1506–8.]

Mr. Blaker: The Secretary of State repeated yesterday his undertaking that the R.E.P. would not be withdrawn for seven years. Does this mean, in effect, that, in that time, the size of the development areas cannot be reduced?

Mr. Shore: It means exactly what I said—that the R.E.P. will be paid for seven years to firms in the existing development areas.

Mr. Johnson: The Government's measures were keenly awaited in Hull, and they have not disappointed us. We are particularly happy that the building grants will apply to us in the North-East, since we can now go ahead on a fairly even basis.

Mr. Shore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are, of course, aware of the problems of the Hull and North Humberside area, and these additional intermediate area proposals will be of great assistance to it.

Mr. Hooley: While we welcome the speed with which my right hon. Friend has decided this important matter, the exclusion of certain authorities from intermediate region status will create serious anomalies, in that they are economically integral parts of the regions which the Hunt Committee studied, but will not be in a third-class category vis-à-vis the development areas and the new intermediate areas. My right hon. Friend is creating more anomalies than he is solving.

Mr. Shore: It is one of the inevitable consequences of any kind of regional policy in which one creates development areas or intermediate areas that there will be those which are included and those which are excluded, but we have taken into account the claims of other towns in the Yorkshire intermediate area, particularly Sheffield. I assure my hon. Friend that we concluded that the outlook for that city was sufficiently promising not to justify inclusion at present.

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (1) what effect he estimates the Government's proposal to meet the cost of the new help for the intermediate areas from within the total assistance to the development areas will have on development in the regions;

(2) what diversion of new employment opportunities from the development areas he estimates will follow from the Government's regional proposals.

Mr. Shore: Our proposals are intended to encourage the expansion of existing industry in the intermediate areas and to attract some new industry there. The development areas will continue to offer more powerful and varied incentives and the diversion effects should not be great.

Mr. Shaw: Can the right hon. Gentleman reply in any other form to the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) just now? Does his reply mean that every firm which now enjoys the

regional employment premium will continue to enjoy it for the next seven years? This assurance is even more important now than it was before the right hon. Gentleman made his announcement yesterday. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a genuine fear in the North-East that the measures announced yesterday may detract somewhat from the employment position of the North-East, which is serious?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Long supplementaries mean fewer Questions.

Mr. Shore: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, I would add that the regional employment premium will go on for seven years as from the date of its introduction in 1967. I hope this makes the position clear. Of course I understand the worries in the North-East but I must, as the hon. Member knows from his experience of a West Riding constituency, weigh the problems of development areas against the emerging problems of other parts of the country, and I have tried to be fair.

Mr. Bagier: While appreciating my right hon. Friend's wish to assist intermediate areas, may I ask whether he does not agree that the extension of the limit within which industrial development certificates were previously held will have a detrimental effect particularly on the North-East in view of the number of footloose industries still about in that area?

Mr. Shore: It was our concern for development areas which led the Government to the conclusion that we should not raise the limit for exemption from I.D.C. control from 3,000 to 5,000 feet.

Mr. Higgins: How many fewer jobs does the right hon. Gentleman estimate will be created in development areas as a result of his announcement?

Mr. Shore: It is impossible to get such an estimate at the present time but, given the geographical situation of a number of intermediate areas, there is the distinct possibility that some Midland or London firms which would not have gone to development areas will be attracted to the new intermediate areas.

Miss Herbison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in development areas where there are dwindling industries, particularly


areas with mine closures which are coming regularly, there is great fear that the announcement he made yesterday will detract from the attraction of new industries to development areas? Can he give a much more positive assurance that this will not happen?

Mr. Shore: I appreciate my right hon. Friends concern, but I remind her that it was partly to anticipate the specially severe problems of the rundown of the coal industry that we declared a number of special development areas in the autumn of 1967, which will be a very material and helpful factor.

Imports

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what studies are at present being carried out by his Department of the United Kingdom propensity to import and of possible measures of import restraint; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Emery: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement about the consideration by the National Economic Development Council at its meeting on 4th June of methods of controlling the rise in imports.

Mr. Shore: The United Kingdom propensity to import and possible additional action to promote import saving are matters which are studied by my Department in the course of carrying out its general economic responsibilities. The National Economic Development Council is to resume its consideration of exports and imports, including import saving, at its meeting on 2nd July.

Mr. Blaker: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the article in the current issue of the Review of Economic Statistics by Messrs. Houthakker and Magee, which argues that the income elasticity of demand for United Kingdom imports is very much higher than the income elasticity demand for United Kingdom exports? What is his view of that argument?

Mr. Shore: This is, of course, one of the many studies which are being made of import propensities of the United Kingdom, both in the period before devaluation and in the period after. What we are trying now to assess is the change

in import propensity since devaluation, but we cannot yet get a reliable estimate of the change in this still relatively short period.

Mr. Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, if the import deposits scheme ends on 5th November, as is the Government's intention, there will be a slowing down of orders for goods to be imported from now until December, with a major build up in December, January and February. What action do the Government intend to take about this and will they ensure that, in the interpretation of statistics, they take this into account?

Mr. Shore: I think that the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating both the effects of the hold up of goods by the import deposits scheme and, therefore, the consequential speed-up of imports which might follow the ending of the scheme.

National Institute of Economic and Social Research (Report)

Mr. Emery: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he has received the report on the three-year study of regional economic development and policy sponsored by his Department and being carried out by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research; and whether he has taken the results of this study into account in reaching his decisions on the recommendations of the Hunt Committee.

The Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs (Mr. T. W. Urwin): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has not yet received the report referred to, because work on it is still in progress but it is expected to be completed early in 1970.

Mr. Emery: Was any part of this Report taken into account before the Secretary of State's statement on the Hunt Committee's Report? Does the hon. Gentleman consider this Report to be part of the policy of constant review or a separate and independent review?

Mr. Urwin: Professor Brown, who leads the National Institute team, was also a member of the Hunt Committee and it may be supposed that his research into fundamental issues for the National Institute will be in line with his contribution to the Hunt Committee. As far as I am concerned, his Report is independent.

Mr. Cant: Is my hon. Friend aware of the findings of the new report on regional earnings and regional policy? Will he ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take into account the level of wages in an area, like, for example, the Potteries, when making decisions about the granting of industrial development certificates?

Mr. Urwin: I take note of that point and will see that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is advised of it.

Development Area Measures

Mr. Speed: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he estimates his Department will have sufficient experience of the effects of development area measures on the problems of the development areas to enable a review of the measures to be held.

Mr. Shore: I keep a close watch on all regional measures, but a special review of development area policy would be premature.

Mr. Speed: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that to spend hundreds of millions of pounds annually on development areas without having any idea of the return on the money or the number of new jobs created is nonsensical? Cannot we get this review under way with much more urgency than his reply indicates in order to make sure that we are getting value for money?

Mr. Shore: I repeat what I have said on a number of occasions—that the new measures we have introduced for development areas are of very recent origin and that both the differential investment grants and the regional employment premium only began to be paid out in autumn 1967. I do not want to embark on a premature review which would be fruitless and lead to inaccurate conclusions.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the things he could do to review the cost of the development area proposals is to consider the descheduling of some of the areas in the development areas which are, on the evidence of the Hunt Committee, nothing like as bad as either intermediate areas or those areas which have not been included in either? I speak in particular of the North Riding.

Mr. Shore: I am not aware that the Hunt Committee recommended that any particular parts of development areas should be descheduled. It recommended that we should embark upon a review. There is here a real danger of having an unsettling effect on industry. We have a momentum now behind development area policy and I should be reluctant to take action that might cause it to falter.

"The Task Ahead"

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what revision he has made, following the discussions with the International Monetary Fund, of the estimates for our balance of trade and balance of payments made in his planning document "The Task Ahead"; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will now revise his planning document. "The Task Ahead," in the light of the estimated balance of payments for the forthcoming year.

Mr. Shore: The medium-term payments objective specified in "The Task Ahead" is not affected by any of the factors mentioned in the hon. Members' Questions.

Mr. Marten: But as the planning of the document "The Task Ahead" was based on a desired payments surplus of £500 million, and as the Chancellor said yesterday that he thought a surplus of only £300 million to be obtainable, has not one of the assumptions on which the document was based altered and do not other things follow from that?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman and I had a similar exchange shortly after the Budget statement. The point I made then was that both the Chancellor, in his short-term forecast and in his Budget speech, and I in my medium term assessment, made the same point—that we need a substantial and continuing surplus of about £500 million a year. What we did not say in the medium-term assessment was the precise year in which we expected this target to be achieved.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us believe that he is hundreds of millions of pounds wrong in his assessment? Would it not be better to leave planning to the I.M.F.


or the Treasury and liquidate his Department?

Mr. Shore: The important thing is on which side of the forecast we are likely to be wrong. It is possible to take a somewhat more optimistic view than the obvious pessimism implicit in the hon. Gentleman's rather silly question.

Mr. George Brown: Speaking from bitter experience, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not agree that leaving it to the Treasury is bound to make it even worse?

Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), who speaks with unrivalled experience of these matters, will agree that obviously the best course is to leave it neither to the Treasury nor to the Department of Economic Affairs but to the combined effort of the two.

Mr. Higgins: While the right hon. Gentleman did not specify a year in which he thought the objective was likely to be achieved, does not he agree, after the agreement debated yesterday, that it is likely to be at least a year later than it would otherwise have been?

Mr. Shore: I see no reason to draw that conclusion. Our objective is to get a substantial and continuing surplus as soon as possible.

Departmental Staff

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the present total staff of his Department; and how this compares with February, 1965.

Mr. Shore: 547 compared with 316.

Mr. Digby: Is the Minister satisfied that the work of his Department could not be done with fewer than this?

Mr. Shore: Yes, I am. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman selected that date but, as he will realise, the Department of Economic Affairs was three months old at that time, and was grossly understaffed in relation to the responsibilities which it had then assumed and which it continues to exercise. Implicit in what the hon. Gentleman said, and explicit in the remarks of several other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, is a continuing campaign against the Depart-

ment of Economic Affairs and, in particular, and much resented, against the unusually talented and hardworking civil servants who man it. I resent this, and look upon it as being entirely politically motivated. I am quite prepared to have hon. and right hon. Gentlemen saying what they like about me, but they are being destructive and silly in their attacks upon a Department which, inevitably, is not in the front line of publicity but is a planning and policy Department which has contributed a very great deal to the development of policy in this country.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Long answers mean fewer Questions.

South-West Regional Council

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how many members of the South-West Regional Council are normally resident in Dorset.

Mr. Urwin: Two, Sir.

Mr. Digby: In view of the finding of the Redcliffe-Maud Report, is it not obvious that Dorset looks very much more to the South-East and to the counties in this region than to the North? Is not the representation quite inadequate, and will his Department take a little more interest in Dorset?

Mr. Urwin: Members of economic planning councils are not chosen to represent areas or even county districts. They are chosen because of the benefits which they can bring through their experience to economic planning generally within the region. I do not think I can usefully add anything on the Redcliffe-Maud Report to what the Prime Minister said in his statement on 11th June.

North-West (Economic Aid)

Mr. Ogden: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what consultations he has had with organisations in the North-West regarding the provision of economic aid to that region.

Mr. Shore: Following my statement on 24th April, I have consulted the North-West Economic Planning Council about our proposed new measures of assistance to the region and the precise boundaries of the North-East Lancashire intermediate area. I have also received representations from a number of local authorities


and other bodies in the region, whose views I have carefully considered.—[Vol. 782, c. 668–72.]

Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we in the North-West fully appreciate the massive aid which has been given by the Government to the region? Bearing in mind the likely advantages and disadvantages of aid based on geographical areas—either intermediate or development area—will he give an assurance that the more delicate mechanism of housing, urban renewal and this kind of development is given full consideration?

Mr. Shore: The problems of communications and urban renewal are just as important in the development of regional planning as specific incentives and aid to industry. I assure my hon. Friend that full weight is given to these factors in allocating public expenditure and in regional planning.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: May I further embarrass my right hon. Friend by congratulating him on the aid which he has given to North-East Lancashire, and particularly to my constituency, which is greatly welcomed? Will he ask his right hon. Friends to publicise the great advantages to industrialists of development and expansion in the North-East Lancashire region?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend will recall that we went as far as we could in yesterday's statement in announcing the immediacy of the measures which we had introduced. Our purpose is to engage the interests of industrialists at the earliest moment.

Sir C. Osborne: If the economic position generally is as rosy as the Chancellor made out yesterday, why is it that hon. Members on both sides of the House are continually complaining of poverty and unemployment in their own districts?

Mr. Shore: That is a very interesting question which shows that the hon. Gentleman has not thought at all about regional policy. The plain truth is that it is possible to have periods of national prosperity coupled with regional depressions, and we had this for many years under the Governments of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Intermediate Areas (Building Grant)

Mr. Hall-Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what criteria he has decided should be applied to the level of employment to be provided to qualify for the employment-linked 25 per cent. building grant in the intermediate areas.

Mr. Urwin: The same criteria as are applied under the Local Employment Acts in relation to building grants in development areas.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Will the Minister of State make absolutely clear in his statements and in the publications of his Department that the Government's proposed building grants which are linked with employment differ fundamentally from and fall far short of the recommendation of the Hunt Committee, which was that all industrial building of a capital nature should receive building grants?

Mr. Urwin: This is an entirely different question. There is no evidence to justify the hon. Gentleman's criticism about falling short of the Hunt Committee's recommendation. Had we accepted the Hunt Committee's recommendation, we should have been guilty of a complete departure of policy in relation to the 25 per cent. building grant as it has always been related to job provision within the development areas.

Regional Employment Premium

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what means are employed by his Department to ascertain the effect of the regional employment premium as an instrument of development area policies.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the operation of regional employment premium in relation to Scotland.

Mr. Shore: I keep a close watch on all the regional incentives. R.E.P. is a comparatively new measure, but I am considering possible means of inquiring into its effect on industry and employment.

Mr. Brooks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who are conscious


of the problems of development areas welcome his proposal to investigate the efficacy of this unselective and undiscriminating hand-out across the board? Does not he consider that, if this is a bad way of bringing industry to the development areas, the earlier we find out the better and, similarly, if it is a good way, the earlier we find out the better?

Mr. Shore: I would agree with my hon. Friend that we want to get accurate information about the effects of particular measures and the sooner the better. I think the whole House would agree with that. When he describes this measure as undiscriminating, he must remember that in two very important ways it is discriminating. It is discriminating in terms of the areas to which it applies, and it is discriminating in terms of its application to manufacturing industry.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that our suspicion is that R.E.P. has not had a very beneficial effect on employment in Scotland, and will he isolate the figures?

Mr. Shore: I would very much like to do so but, as I have said before, the difficulty is that we have had less than two years' experience of it and inevitably it is an incentive whose effect, assuming that it has the effect we want, is bound to be a cumulative and growing one.

Mr. Waddington: Has the Secretary of State closed his mind entirely to the important and fundamental recommendation of the Hunt Committee that there should be a comprehensive review of development area policies here and now?

Mr. Shore: It is obvious from what I said that my mind is far from closed. I cannot have an inquiry into policies until I have some reason to believe that their effects can be measured, and that time has not yet come.

Mr. Mikardo: Has my right hon. Friend seen the figures which were given in a Written Answer on Tuesday by the Department of Employment and Productivity which show that male unemployment in the special development areas is growing very rapidly? Does not that rapid increase suggest a failure of the Government's policies, including the regional employment premiums, to do the job which they were meant to do, and should not he therefore apply a new

policy—for example, the policy of the Labour Party which he did so much to devise?

Mr. Shore: The special development areas, as their name implies, have problems which are especially acute, and the designation of special development areas started only in November, 1967. I do not take the pessimistic view of my hon. Friend as to the effect of the policies. As to other policies, I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the use of public sector industry as well as private industry in development areas, and I am as anxious as he is to employ the public sector in producing jobs in development areas.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now commission a study of the effects of the regional employment premium on shipbuilding firms outside the development areas.

Mr. Shore: No, Sir.

Mr. Mitchell: Why not?

Mr. Shore: Because, added to the general difficulties which I have already listed in making an examination of R.E.P. at this stage, there is the particular difficulty of analysing its effects on shipbuilding firms, not merely in the development areas but also outside them.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is obviously an unfair discrimination against extremely efficient firms in the South. It has gone on too long and is giving an advantage to marginal firms in other parts of the country which, in the long term, is of no benefit to shipbuilding as a whole.

Mr. Shore: It is the nature and purpose of R.E.P. to discriminate in favour of manufacturing firms in development areas. This raises a matter of the principle of the R.E.P. itself. But there is no reason to believe that either the Vosper Thornycroft Group in Southampton or Brooke Marine in Lowestoft are suffering from the effects of competition with firms receiving R.E.P.

South-East Economic Planning Council (Report)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what further action the Government plan to take


following their reply to the first report of the South East Economic Planning Council, "A Strategy for the South-East".

Mr. Urwin: As I said in reply to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) on 8th May, the council's long-term strategy proposals for the region are being tested and followed up by the South-East Joint Planning Study.—[Vol. 783, c. 639–40.]

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that his Order and counter-Order on the town of Ipswich have brought complete disorder to planning in North-East Essex, and will he state as soon as possible the consequences on planning of the Order not to go ahead with the new town of Ipswich?

Mr. Urwin: The decision announced the other day by my right hon. Friend does not mean that growth in Ipswich will not continue. The new town proposal will not be proceeded with, but Ipswich has a strong potential for growth and there is no reason why growth should not take place there.

Northern Economic Planning Council (Report)

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what consultation he has had with the North Regional Planning Committee about the Northern Economic Planning Council's statement, Northern Region, an Outline Strategy of Development to 1981.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Frederick Lee): None, Sir. but I understand that the Northern Economic Planning Council discussed its outline strategy in draft with the Committee and that the two bodies meet again soon.

Mr. Willey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a little disappointing and that he should realise that this Council was superimposed in a region upon many very valuable regional organisations? Will he see that these valuable authoritative organisations are brought fully into the consideration of regional problems?

Mr. Lee: By all means. As I have indicated, there was discussion between the two bodies, and I understand that

further discussions will take place. We have just had a request for a meeting on general regional policy with the Committee, and we shall consider that favourably.

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what action he is taking pursuant to the Northern Regional Economic Planning Council's proposals on outline strategy for development to 1981.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The important proposals contained in the Planning Council's Report are being carefully examined and the Government's views on them will be made known in due course.

Mr. Willey: Following my earlier supplementary Question, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of the Council promoting a conference on the widest manageable basis so that there may be a full discussion within the region of this Report and its implications?

Mr. Lee: That sounds a pretty good suggestion. Certainly I will put it to the Council.

Hunt Report (Representations)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he has now received any official representations on the recommendations of the Hunt Report from the National Coal Board.

Mr. Shore: No, Sir. But my right hon. Friends the Minister for Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Power keep in close touch with the National Coal Board about the services of the Opencast Executive in local authority land reclamation schemes. This was, of course, considered by the Hunt Committee.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his specific reference to using the Opencast Executive of the Coal Board for clearing derelict land in his statement yesterday is greatly welcomed? Will he proceed further and initiate discussions with a view to creating a national land reclamation agency?

Mr. Shore: The difficulty with a national reclamation agency is the distinction between the two functions—the


planning function and the executive function. If one thinks in terms of planning, I do not think that a national agency could take over what is essentially a task of the local authorities. They must plan not only the priorities of reclamation, but also the use of the land, within the context of their general planning proposals. As for executive help in clearing land, landscaping and grass planting, the Opencast Executive has immense experience, and we can do no more than urge local authorities to make full use of it.

Industrial Reorganisation Corporation

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he is satisfied that the gross dividend of £750,000 paid by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation on its public dividend capital of £31 million in the financial year 1968–69 represents an adequate return in present conditions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Shore: The I.R.C.'s primary task is to promote industrial reorganisation to the benefit of the United Kingdom economy, not to make substantial profits I am well satisfied with the dividend for 1968–69, and with the fact that the I.R.C. has achieved profitability a year earlier than expected.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much more of this artificially cheap trafficking is to be put at the disposal of the I.R.C. in the current year? Should not this matter be brought to the attention of the International Monetary Fund?

Mr. Shore: I.R.C. expenditure is programmed in the Estimates in the normal way, as with other bodies.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Questions such as that which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) misrepresent the rôle and function of the I.R.C., which is intended to restructure industry? Is he further aware, therefore, that we on this side of the House welcome everything done in this way?

Mr. Shore: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite who have doubts about the effectiveness of the I.R.C. that they have only to read its second Annual

Report to see an immense record of achievement in restructuring vital sections of British industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Bristol Central Telephone Exchange (New Building)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement about the design of the proposed new building for the Bristol Central Telephone Exchange in relation to the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission, details of which are in his possession.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): Planning clearance was sought from the local planning authority. I understand that the authority took into account the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission and the public and considered a number of alternative designs. It has given planning clearance for a design incorporating a 300 ft. slender tower.

Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Bristol is an ancient and beautiful city? Does not he feel that he has some obligation in this respect when proposing new tall buildings? In view of the objections of the Royal Fine Art Commission and those of many sections of local opinion, will not he look into the matter again and order or ask for a public inquiry?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am well aware of the great attractions of Bristol. I am also aware that there is very severe congestion during peak hours, particularly on telephonic routes to Bristol. We want to deal with that by the erection of some construction which will enable communications to improve. I am satisfied that the planning authority has gone into this with great care, that there is no need for any additional inquiry, and that this is the best decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Colour Television (Aberdeenshire)

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Postmaster-General what is the present position in regard to providing television programmes in colour for Aberdeenshire.

Mr. Stonehonse: B.B.C.2, in colour, is already available in Aberdeenshire; the duplicate services of B.B.C.1 and independent television, also in colour, are expected to start in 1971 and to be available to viewers who can now receive B.B.C.2.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

Regional Employment Premium

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the present number of workers in the Merseyside Development Area for whom the regional employment premium is paid to employers; what was the comparable number 12 months ago; and what has been the total sum so far paid under this head within the development area.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): On 30th November, 1968, and 30th November, 1967, respectively there were 339,000 and 304,000 persons employed in establishments in the Merseyside Development Area registered for regional payments including the regional employment premium.
These figures reflect the position in establishments registered at the date of the count. They do not include all eligible establishments since they take no account of belated applications which were subsequently accepted. The difference between the two figures cannot therefore be taken to represent the full extent of any increase in employment in manufacturing industries in the area.
Between 4th September, 1967, when regional employment premium became available, and 31st March, 1969, about £24 million was paid in regional employment premium to employers in the Merseyside Development Area.

Mr. Brooks: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a relatively high proportion of Merseyside workers employed in service industries? In view of the character of R.E.P., is the objective of this hand-out to restructure industry on Merseyside or to gain the maximum possible employment on Merseyside?

Mr. Hattersley: I think that it has both objects in part. But, irrespective of

its success in achieving these supplementary objects, I think that my hon. Friend will conclude from the figures that I have just quoted that it has played a substantial part in improving the general employment prospects in the area.

Index of Retail Prices

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will publish regularly a cost-of-living index containing information on insurance, mortgage repayments, taxation and other matters which are excluded from the Index of Retail Prices.

Mr. Hattersley: No. Changes in indirect taxes which are reflected in changes in the retail prices of goods and services are already included in the official indices of retail prices.
Changes in direct taxes, insurance and mortgage repayments have been excluded on the recommendation of the Cost of Living Advisory Committee.
Information about the incidence of these items is available from other published sources, including the annual reports on the Family Expenditure Survey.

Mr. Driberg: Since it is officially admitted that the accuracy of the present index is widely doubted, would it not be better to replace it by a real, comprehensive, and credible cost-of-living index?

Mr. Hattersley: The admission to which the hon. Gentleman refers was in fact made by me and I am prepared to repeat it this afternoon. One reason why its accuracy is doubted is because people believe it to be an indication of movements in the cost of living when in fact it is a series of indices which are much more precise and are intended to do a rather different job from the one that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mrs. Ewing: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any intention to publish any kind of cost-of-living index for Scotland? After 18 months of hints that such a disclosure may be made at any moment, is it not time to say yes or no to a request for such vital statistics?

Mr. Hattersley: I told the hon. Lady some months ago that there are substantial technical problems about producing


regional indices. The fact that those problems exist is exemplified by the evidence that she presents in that she has not explained the nature of the indices she would like to see and whether they should compare regional differences or movements over time in every region.

Mr. Higgins: As the hon. Gentleman has already agreed that the existing Index does not fully reflect the cost of living of pensioners and has promised a new Index for that, may I ask when we may expect it?

Mr. Hattersley: It was published a week ago and a full account appeared this morning in The Times.

Mr. Speed: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what were the increases in the index of retail prices for nationalised industries, for food, for housing, for fuel and light, for durable household goods, for clothing and footwear, for transport and

13th Oct., 1964 to 20th May, 1969
19th July, 1966 to 20th May, 1969
14th Nov., 1967 to 20th May, 1969
21st May, 1968 to 20th May, 1969


Nationalised industries
…
23·9
12·4
5·1
4·2


Food
…
…
…
…
21·9
13·3
11·3
6·5


Housing
…
…
…
26·7
12·9
6·5
4·0


Fuel and light
…
…
22·9
12·6
3·7
3·1


Durable household goods
…
14·2
9·6
7·5
3·7


Clothing and footwear
…
11·0
6·3
4·6
3·4


Transport and vehicles
…
21·8
13·6
9·5
3·8


Miscellaneous goods
…
25·1
17·1
14·6
5·5


Services
…
…
…
30·8
17·3
10·5
7·8


All items
…
…
…
21·9
12·8
9·2
5·3


Notes:


1. The items included under the heading "nationalised industries" are


Coal


Coke


Gas


Electricity


Road and rail passenger transport


Postal and telephone services


2. These items are also included in other groups as follows:


Coal, coke, gas and electricity in Fuel and light


Road and rail passenger transport in Transport and vehicles


Postal and telephone services in Services

Cost of Living Advisory Committee

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will broaden the membership and understanding of the Cost of Living Advisory Committee by adding to it some consumers' representatives, more trade union representatives, and at least two housewives from the middle and lower income groups.

vehicles, for miscellaneous goods, for services and for all items in the index since October, 1964, since July, 1966, since November, 1967, and over the last 12 months, to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Hattersley: As the reply contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Speed: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he confirm that the greatest increases in prices since October, 1964, are in the nationalised industry, housing and service sectors, all directly due to Government policy, and that these will be exacerbated by rises in S.E.T. in two weeks' time?

Mr. Hattersley: I cannot confirm conclusions which the hon. Gentleman draws from figures which he has not yet seen.

Following are the percentage increases:

Mr. Hattersley: I am satisfied that the interests of the trade unions and of consumers generally are adequately represented by the present membership of the Cost of Living Advisory Committee.

Mr. Driberg: Does the omission of housewives from my hon. Friend's Answer mean that they are not adequately represented, in his view?

Mr. Hattersley: It does not mean that. It means, as I tried to explain in an


earlier answer, that the index is intended to do a technical job, which it does with great accuracy. It also reflects the situation that it is difficult to get what my hon. Friend calls the typical housewife to serve on such bodies. The moment they are available for selection and service they almost invariably cease to be typical.

Director General of International Labour Office (Visit)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what arrangements have been made for the Director General of the International Labour Office to visit the United Kingdom in connection with the 50th anniversary of that organisation; if she will provide facilities for him to meet members of both Houses of Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Hattersley: At the First Secretary's invitation, Mr. David Morse, the Director General of the International Labour Office, will next month be paying a short official visit to this country to mark the 50th Anniversary of the International Labour Organisation. Mr. Morse will then be meeting representatives of employers' organisations, the trade union movement and members of the Government and Opposition. I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind, but in the limited time available it will be difficult to add to the arrangements already planned.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my hon. Friend fully seized of the pride that we on these benches have at the part that Britain and the British trade unions have played in helping this remaining section of the League of Nations to continue its work for 50 years and in the magnificent job that it has done for workers all over the world?
Will my hon. Friend ensure that during Mr. David E. Morse's visit we are able to give expression to the pride that we have in the part that we have played in his organisation?

Mr. Hattersley: The Government share that view. The object of the First Secretary's invitation was to make it apparent.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Welsh National Theatre

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if the Government will make a contribution towards Welsh cultural life to commemorate the Investiture by providing funds for the setting up of a Welsh national theatre.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): No request for Government assistance has yet been received. The first essential is for Wales to produce a firm scheme which has the support of Welsh people and the local authorities. This is now being drawn up by the Court of the National Theatre for Wales in close consultation with the Welsh Arts Council.

Mr. Hooson: Do not the Government think that they should take the initiative in this matter? As we are having the Investiture this year, would it not be right to mark the occasion with a permanent contribution towards Welsh cultural life rather than leaving Wales with the ephemeral benefits from the Investiture itself?

Miss Bacon: I find that very strange. I should think that Wales would want to initiate this rather than leave it to the Government. But I will pass on to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State responsible for these matters what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Criminal Offences (Maximum Fines)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in view of the fall in the value of money, and the higher wages and salaries that are being earned, if he will introduce legislation to increase five-fold the maximum fines which can be imposed for all crimes in all courts.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): No, Sir. There is ordinarily no limit to the amount of a fine that may be imposed by a higher court on conviction on indictment. The Criminal Justice Act, 1967, quadrupled the maximum fine which a magistrates' court may impose for an indictable offence tried summarily


and, following an extensive review of penalties fixed by earlier Statutes, increased many maximum fines for summary offences.

Sir C. Osborne: I did not ask about the higher courts. I was asking about the lower courts where the vast majority of—[HON. MEMBERS: "Make yourself clear."]—where the vast majority of petty crimes are tried and where magistrates impose penalties by fines. Since these fines were fixed many years ago, will the hon. Gentleman look at them again?

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman may have failed to understand my reply. That is covered by Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL POLICY STATEMENTS (CO-ORDINATION)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between Ministers in the issuing of policy statements on matters which are of primary concern to more than one Department; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir, but I shall be making an announcement shortly about improvement of co-ordination of Government information at official level.

Mr. Marten: In the meantime, is the Prime Minister satisfied with the remarks of the Secretary of State for Social Services that the extra money to be raised from the increased charges on spectacles and teeth should be used for schools?
Before answering that, can the Prime Minister tell us why the regulations for these increased charges have been delayed in being presented to Parliament?

The Prime Minister: On the second part of the question, the hon. Gentleman had better await further statements. He will get everything he needs to know in due course.
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question—and obviously it was put down a long time ago—it was fully dealt with in my answer to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) just before the Recess.

Mr. Moonman: In preparing the statement that he has mentioned, will my right

hon. Friend also take into account the grave implications associated with Government structure, which is of great concern to both sides of the House? Will he also take particular notice of need for reorganisation in the industry-based and technology departments?

The Prime Minister: I am always prepared to listen to any suggestion of my hon. Friend on this question.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In his statement, will the Prime Minister also take account of the need that accurate information on the postponement of matters so important as Health Service charges should reach the House rather than rumours—which is now the case?

The Prime Minister: Yes; but I am not responsible for rumours or the inaccurate statement that appeared in one newspaper this morning.

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Prime Minister whether he will resume his duties of being directly concerned in the work of the Department of Economic Affairs.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what I said in the House on 11th April, 1968.—[Vol. 762, c. 1585–8.]

Mr. Goodhew: Why this sudden display of modesty from our erstwhile economic overlord? [Interruption.] Is it that the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise cuts into Question Time. Mr. Goodhew.

Mr. Goodhew: Is it that the right hon. Gentleman is now convinced that an economic miracle is not possible under this Administration and that he should leave his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry the can?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware that an Answer which refers back to a statement on 11th April, 1968, can be described as a sudden access of anything. It goes back some 15 months.
Concerning the economic miracle, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, was a quotation from a distinguished overseas commentator, I referred—this was last July after the statement—to what had been achieved in the restructuring of British industry, in which I hope the whole House will take some pride.

Mr. Cant: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that such a development is unnecessary? I might remind him that the City Press placard last week announcing the success of the Government's economic policies has been followed this week by a placard announcing growing support for the Labour Government?

The Prime Minister: I have never felt either unduly elated or unduly depressed by newspaper placards of that particular journal. This question refers to economic co-ordination, and the responsibility of all Ministers in the Government, including the Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Treasury, remains unchanged.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS (RECOMMENDATIONS)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Prime Minister what action he is taking to co-ordinate the work of the Secretaries of State for the Home Department, Wales and Scotland in the preparation and laying of the Orders required to implement the recommendations of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. Member to what my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, said during the debate on 19th June.—[Vol. 785, c. 737–52.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether, before the decision was taken for his right hon. Friends to act in apparent disregard of their statutory duties by laying the Reports without the accompanying Orders required by the Act of 1949, the advice of the Attorney-General was taken, and if so, with what result?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman made a number of contributions to the debate, both in his own speech, and outside his own speech, and now that the Bill has been laid he will have more opportunities.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I was trying to answer. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that in all these matters the fullest legal advice of the Law Officers is always taken.

Mr. Boston: As one who is interested in constituencies in the Kentish area, may

I ask whether my right hon. Friend can say whether he has seen reports of the impending flight from Bexley of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to the Cities of London and Westminster? Does my right hon. Friend think that the right hon. Gentleman is worried about his Bexley majority?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the movements of the right hon. Gentleman are any concern of mine at all. It will perhaps be something of a pleasure, in watching Conservative broadcasts, to see, instead of those unending interviews in the Bexley working men's club, interviews in the City of London working men's club.

Mr. Hogg: As we are interesting ourselves in one another's constituencies, is it not the case that the electorate of Huyton is 95,746, and that if the constituency were reduced to its proper proportions the Prime Minister be out of a seat as well as out of a job?

The Prime Minister: The 95,000 members of Huyton are obviously much more satisfied with their Member of Parliament than are the members of Bexley—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not an election meeting.

The Prime Minister: They still have abundant possibilities, because it was the right hon. Gentleman's Government that went to the last minute of the time allowed by the Statute. I am glad to see, in the case of the seat being created for the Leader of the Opposition, that it will not be necessary, as in the case of the seat created for the right hon. Gentleman, to send anyone to the House of Lords.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET COMMITTEES

Mr. Biffen: asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek the agreement of the Cabinet to the publication of the number of Cabinet committees, and of the Ministers who are ex-officio member of which committees.

Mr. Peyton: asked the Prime Minister why he will not alter the practice of not giving information concerning the membership and rôle of the inner Cabinet.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Prime Minister why he will not alter the present practice of not disclosing the names of his inner Cabinet.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Members to my reply to a Question by the hon. Members to my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on the 30th of April, 1968.—[Vol. 763, c. 999–1000.]

Mr. Biffen: In view of the significance of the post of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, is the Prime Minister aware that there is considerable disquiet about the exclusion of the right hon. Gentleman from the Inner Cabinet? As it clearly could not have arisen over considerations to do with the industrial relations legislation, can the Prime Minister now confirm that it arises from his embarrassment at the partisan behaviour of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in dealing with the Boundary Commission's Report?

The Prime Minister: I shall be glad to convey to my right hon. Friend the hon. Gentleman's concern about this.

Mr. Peyton: Why is the Prime Minister so shy about identifying the component parts of the inner Cabinet? Presumably it is of great importance. Are we to be blamed for our curiosity in wishing to know the identity of the constituent parts of this rotten apple?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is not to be blamed for his curiosity in any way. He spends a great deal of time, late at night, polishing up the evidence of his curiosity. It does not mean that that curiosity has to be satisfied, any more than our legitimate curiosity was satisfied when we wanted to know the membership and the constituent parts of the rotten apple, when, in defiance of a pledge they had just made, they introduced the Rent Act.

Mr. Gresham-Cooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I put down my Question the British public were really interested in the names of those who governed our destinies? As they now know that our destinies are governed by the T.U.C., there is no further point in my supplementary question.

The Prime Minister: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling us

how his intellectual processes have been developing. The concluding part of his question is not based on fact. If he is unaware of facts known to the rest of the country, I shall send him the full names of the Cabinet.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL EXPENDITURE (GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES)

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the order of priority, on the grounds of urgency, of the social problems requiring Government money.

The Prime Minister: The Government's priorities are expressed in the allocations of public expenditure announced from time to time. For expenditure in the years 1968–69 to 1970–71 I would refer my hon. Friend to the White Paper Cmnd. 3936 published in February this year.

Mr. Whitaker: Should not the country mobilise all its resources to eliminate all homelessness in view of the permanent damage done to the children of broken families which results from that, before embarking on luxuries such as colour television?

The Prime Minister: This is one of the important priorities. The point that I wish to make—and this is why I use the word "allocations"—is that for very many years, for generations, for successive Governments, however high the priority that is given to one particular subject, it cannot have an absolute priority over all others, in the sense, for example, that education should have priority over social security benefits, or the other way around. At the margin, the test has to be made within the expanding but limited total of Government expenditure. This is expressed in the allocations published in the Vote on Account and in the White Paper.

Mr. Thorpe: In support of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker), is it not a fact that there are people living in upwards of 2 million houses which should be condemned as unfit, some of which will not be demolished for upwards of seven years, and most of which are without running water and indoor sanitation? Surely this is one of the greatest social evils, from which many other evils flow?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the social evils of overcrowding and about houses inherited from past generations, indeed from the past century which lack all the necessary amenities. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will play his full part in the later stages of the Housing Bill this afternoon which deals to a unique and unprecedented extent with the help being given by the Government for modernising many of these houses.

Mr. Hooley: Would my right hon. Friend agree that in relation to housing the sense of priority of Tory councils in the country is slipping disastrously?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that one would use the phrase "social priorities" in connection with most of the Tory councils. On the other hand, I think that my hon. Friend may be being unfair, because we have seen a considerable degree of Press reporting and briefing to the effect that they are not able to take their own decisions, but are co-ordinated by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Astor: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that provision for disabled people, especially the civilian disabled, including housewives, is quite inadequate? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that their problems will be given a high priority in considering the allocation of resources?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right to bring before the House one of the many unsolved problems of the social services with which the House has tried to be concerned. I think that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the great progress made, and the vastly increased social security expenditure under this Government as compared with the previous Government in the matter of disablement, but I should not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's reference to the continuance of this problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (CONFEDERATION OF BRITISH INDUSTRY)

Mr. Ogden: asked the Prime Minister what consultations he has had with the leaders of the Confederation of British

Industry regarding co-operation in proposals to improve industrial relations.

Mr. Boston: asked the Prime Minister what further consultations he has had about securing co-operation on proposals for improving industrial relations.

The Prime Minister: There has been very full consultation with the C.B.I. about the Government's proposals. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State had meetings with their representatives on 6th March, 21st April, 13th May and 13th June. Together with my right hon. Friend, I had a meeting with them on 19th June. As I said in the House on 19th June, consultations on future legislation on industrial relations will continue with the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and the other organisations concerned.—[Vol. 785, c. 700–14.]

Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us on this side, especially those who fully supported the original proposals of the White Paper, have been angered, disappointed, almost dismayed, by the almost complete lack of any constructive suggestions from the C.B.I., and that those who supported the original White Paper are now entitled to ask that equal pressure should be put on the leaders of the C.B.I. to do their share, as the T.U.C. has done its share?

The Prime Minister: It is right to say that my right hon. Friend and I suggested that, since the T.U.C. had taken on, with great courage and a very big movement forward, compared with anything ever contemplated before, the responsibility of dealing, through the constituent unions, with unofficial strikes as well as with inter-union disputes, it was a pity that the C.B.I. could not itself feel able to go into these matters and exercise such degree of discipline over feudally-minded employers as the T.U.C. was going to do over unions which failed to deal with their members. The House, too, will have felt, I think, that the comments of the C.B.I. after this meeting might have risen a little above the level of a suburban rugby club dinner.

Mr. Boston: Would my right hon. Friend accept that, in his attitude on this, the Leader of the Opposition has exposed his weaknesses on this, as on other matters—in, for example, making his regrettable speech on racial matters earlier


in the year, only after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers were safely out of the country, and making his anti-British remarks—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must arise out of the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Boston: Of course I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker; I was trying to relate my supplementary question to the Question.
—in making his anti-British remarks in the United States, and, now, in his resentment that the Government have achieved far more on industrial relations than ever he was able to do when he had the power to act?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but, with respect to my hon. Friend, I cannot really see what the Leader of the Opposition has to do with Question Q14, since nothing that he either did when he had the power to do it or said since has any relation to proposals for improving industrial relations, nor has it anything to do with Question Q7, because the C.B.I. consider his proposals to be unworkable.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIVISION NO. 284 (CORRECTION)

Mr. Alison: On a point of order. I wonder whether I might ask for your help and guidance, Mr. Speaker, over a personal matter arising from misreporting in the OFFICIAL REPORT on Tuesday last, 24th June.
In c. 1231, my name was listed as one of those who had voted in support of the Capital Punishment Bill, introduced under the Ten Minute Rule by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). In fact, I was not in the House at the time, and I would not have voted for the Bill had I been here. The wide publicity which this received puts me in an embarrassing position. Can you help me at all?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The mistake will be corrected. The fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised it will make it clear to those who are interested.

GIBRALTAR (FERRY SERVICE)

Mr. Hamling: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her

Majesty's Government will take to preserve the rights of travellers to Gibraltar in the light of the Spanish Government's decision to close the ferry from Algeciras to Gibraltar, and whether he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I have instructed Her Majesty's Ambassador in Madrid to deliver a Note to the Spanish Government on 24th June requesting agreement in principle for the operation of a Gibraltar-run ferry service between Gibraltar and Algeciras. I did this because there was reason to believe that the Spanish Government would shortly withdraw the ferry operating from Algeciras.
In their reply, which was received yesterday, the Spanish Government announced that they had decided to suspend with effect from tomorrow regular maritime services between Spain and Gibraltar and, in effect, rejected our request.
This action flouts the standards of international behaviour accepted by modern Governments and it will do nothing whatever to bring a solution of the Gibraltar dispute nearer.
Her Majesty's Government reject emphatically both the pretext adduced by the Spanish Government for this latest measure and the attempt to justify the campaign against the Gibraltarians by reference to resolutions adopted by the General Assembly. Recommendations of the General Assembly that are contrary to binding commitments laid down in the Charter of the United Nations cannot be invoked as justification of the policy of economic and psychological pressure to which the Gibraltarians have been subjected by the Spanish Government.
As to the incident alleged in the Spanish Government's Note, that Government are well aware that Spanish workers were not molested in Gibraltar on 25th June: in fact, they were informed that they should present themselves on the regular day for the payment of their wages.
It will not have escaped the attention of the Spanish authorities that the reason so many workers rushed to Gibraltar on 25th June to claim their wages was precisely because they had good reason to fear that the ferry service was to be suspended.
The interruption of normal maritime communications between Gibraltar and Spain is also contrary to the Treaty of Utrecht, in which it is implicit that there should be sea communication between Gibraltar and Spain. The House will recall that the Spanish Government have consistently refused to agree to the British proposal to submit the legal issues in dispute to adjudication by the International Court of Justice.
The Spanish Government's decision cannot in any way lessen—indeed, it must strengthen—our determination to do everything that may be required of us to enable the Gibraltarians to resist Spanish pressure and to maintain their economy.
I have summoned the Spanish Ambassador early tomorrow morning in order to convey to him personally the views of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House will be grateful for his assurance that Her Majesty's Government are strengthening their determination to help the Gibraltarians? Will he tell us also what reprisals the Government will take against these continual pin-pricks? Is it not about time that he understood the strength of feeling in this country on the side of Gibraltar?

Mr. Stewart: I think that I understand very well the strength of feeling in this country about Gibraltar.
On retaliation, I would remind my hon. Friend of what I said to the House on 9th June—that we must ask of any particular measure whether it will help the Gibraltarians, whether it will influence Spanish policy and whether it will do Spain more injury than it does to Britain and Gibraltar. These are stringent tests, but I believe that they are the right ones. I think that our best course is not retaliation for its own sake, but to continue to make it clear that the Spanish measures are bound to fail.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House would agree with his comment that this latest action is wholly contrary to the best standards of international conduct and would support the determination which he has expressed to support the Gibraltarians?
Since he has expressed the opinion that this Spanish action is contrary to the provision of the Treaty of Utrecht, can he assure us that Her Majesty's Government will not react to this latest outrageous behaviour by agreeing to talks in which the subject of Gibraltar's sovereignty is on the agenda?

Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his question. On the second part, I can give that assurance. Indeed, it is in line with what was said by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on, I think, 17th February.

Mr. Luard: Since, as my right hon. Friend said, the cutting off of communications by sea between Spain and Gibraltar is clearly contrary to the Treaty of Utrecht, will he warn the Spanish Government that unless they rescind this action we will regard the treaty as at an end, with the result that any question of the reversion of Gibraltar to Spain at a future date would thereby be excluded?

Mr. Stewart: I believe that I should first summon the Spanish Ambassador and make clear the view of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Council of Europe, in Western European Union and in other European bodies there is a good deal of misunderstanding about the British case and a good deal of improper sympathy for the Spanish case? Will he give instructions that British missions in Europe should make clear to the Parliamentarians of our allies what is the whole of the British case so that we will be in no doubt of having their support on this important matter?

Mr. Stewart: I agree that it is important to make the entire validity of our case known internationally as widely as possible; and I acknowledge the help which the hon. Gentleman has given to that end.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have taken the most diligent steps to see that our case is fully explained. In some cases lack of support for it is due not to a lack of understanding as to how valid it is. However, I notice that if we compare the results the last time this matter was considered in the United Nations with the time before, it is


apparent that what we have been doing has been having some effect.

Mr. Molloy: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in essence, this is a so-called territorial claim by a Fascist régime? In addition to declaring that we will stand by Gibraltar, should we not demonstrate this by, for example, my right hon. Friend considering visiting Gibraltar to speak with the leaders of the Gibraltarian community to see just how far Britain can go in helping them?

Mr. Stewart: I assure my hon. Friend that we will take whatever steps may be necessary and wise, whether by visits, by economic help or by any other means, to make it clear that the Spanish attempt to make life in Gibraltar impossible will never succeed.

Mr. Thorpe: While condemning the illegality of this act and recognising its inconvenience, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say, first, what adverse economic effect it is having on Gibraltar and, if it is having such an effect, what plans we have made to assist the Gibraltarians?
Secondly, to return to the point which the right hon. Gentleman sympathetically considered when I raised it previously, has he given further thought to the possibility of persuading ships no longer to bunker in Spanish ports, which is a large source of revenue to the Spanish economy, and suggest that they might go to Gibraltar?

Mr. Stewart: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to wait a little longer for an answer to the second part of his supplementary question, which I am considering.
The answer to the first part—about the effect of this step on the Gibraltarian economy—is, "Not so far." At this stage it is to be regarded more as a petty and malicious act than one which is doing any serious damage to the Gibraltarian economy.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is it not about time that Her Majesty's Government stopped holders of British passports from visiting Spain? How far does my right hon. Friend intend to allow the Spanish Government to go before taking that step?

Mr. Stewart: In answering that supplementary question I ask my hon. Friend

and the whole House to consider what I think hon. Members realise, that there would be considerable difficulties in Her Majesty's Government trying to enforce action of this kind on British citizens. However, it is an action that is immediately within the reach and free choice of any British citizen, a view which I have previously expressed.

Mr. Amery: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Spanish Government that they are making themselves look a bit ridiculous by picking a quarrel with us at a time when the Soviet Fleet is establishing itself more and more in the Mediterranean, not least on the Algerian shore opposite Spain?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir, I think that that is true. The general decision of the Spanish Government to be at odds with countries in Western Europe is extremely ill-advised.

Mr. James Johnson: Was the possibility of Gibraltar being isolated in this way foreseen by Her Majesty's Government and were steps envisaged? Will my right hon. Friend consider consulting B.E.A. about increasing the number of flights to Gibraltar and decreasing the cost of air fares to that country?

Mr. Stewart: I assure my hon. Friend that all these matters have been, and still are, under consideration. The House will have noticed that the injury that might have been done to the Gibraltarian economy by, for example, the withdrawal of labour, has been greatly minimised because of the extent to which it was foreseen and because of the necessary precautions that were taken.

Mr. Peyton: While supporting what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I ask whether the Government would consider imposing some charge on travellers from this country to Spain so that they may make—gladly, I am sure—a contribution to the cost of sustaining Gibraltar?

Mr. Stewart: That was suggested earlier, but I think that I should take the House into my confidence on this issue by asking hon. Members to pose this question to themselves: if we tried to impose prohibitions, fines or levies on British subjects who chose to go to Spain on holiday and were then faced with the


fact that they were going to nearby Spain and simply crossing the frontier, we might find it difficult to enforce measures of that kind without a degree of interference in the ordinary liberty of the British subject which the House and the country might not accept. That is why I say that the remedy is in the hands of every patriotic British subject.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on. Mr. Heath.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House kindly state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 30TH JUNE—Private Members' Motion until seven o'clock.
Remaining stages of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
TUESDAY, 1ST JULY—Supply [24th Allotted Day]:
Debate on the Financing of the National Health Service, which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Age of Majority (Scotland) Bill.
Motions on the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) (Amendment) Regulations.
Motion on the Grant-Aided Secondary Schools (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations.
Remaining stages of the Architects Registration (Amendment) Bill.
At seven o'clock, opposed Private Business put down by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
WEDNESDAY, 2ND JULY—Second Reading of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill.
Motions on the Representation of the People Regulations.
THURSDAY, 3RD JULY—Supply [25th Allotted Day]:
Debate on Industrial Relations, on an Opposition Motion.
Motion on the Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations.
Consideration of Lords Amendment to the Employers' Liability (Defective Equipment) Bill.
FRIDAY, 4TH JULY—Debate on a Motion to take note of the Report from the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Session 1966–67.
MONDAY, 7TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Air Corporations Bill, the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords], and of the Family Law Reform Bill [Lords].

Mr. Heath: Is it still the intention of the Secretary of State for Social Services to lay Regulations raising the charges on teeth and spectacles? If so, when will they be laid?

Mr. Peart: I could not give a precise date. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] It will be done at the proper time.

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman owes the House rather more than that. The Secretary of State made his original announcement on 5th May and he promised the House that the Regulations would be laid shortly. That was seven weeks ago, which, in Parliamentary terminology, is a long way past "shortly". Do the Government intend to lay the Regulations? If so, will they be laid before or after the Recess?

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman asked me to state the business for next week. That I have done—[Hon. Members: "Answer."] As I said, I could not give a precise date. When I am in a position to do so, I will make an announcement.

Mr. Heath: Are the Orders to be laid—yes or no? If yes, are they to be laid before the long Recess—yes or no?

Mr. Peart: As I said, it is the intention, in view of what my right hon. Friend said, to lay them at an appropriate time, but I am not prepared to give a precise date.

Mr. David Watkins: May I continue the saga on my Insurance (Employers'


Liability) Bill and ask what arrangements my right hon. Friend will make to enable the House to give a decision on the Bill?

Mr. Peart: As my hon. Friend has rightly said, this is an important matter. He has made an approach to me and I asked sponsors of Bills to come to see me. That is still open to hon. Members I am looking at this matter. I have already announced progress on some Private Members' Bills during next week's business.

Sir G. Nabarro: Can the Leader of the House say whether next week the Government propose to move for writs for five pending by-elections having regard to the fact that unless this is done next week those elections cannot be held until October? Newcastle-under-Lyme, which fell vacant on 19th February, Swindon on 7th March, Glasgow, Gorbals, Islington, North and Paddington, North are all Labour seats where we urgently need the electors to be enfranchised by Tory members.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member knows from long experience that it is not for the Leader of the House to make such an announcement, but for the Patronage Secretary.

Mr. Whitaker: In view of the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House will very much regret the loss of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), will my right hon. Friends arrange early next week to tell us about improvements in conditions for back benchers, or would he advise us to take industrial action such as working to rule or striking?

Mr. Peart: I hope that by drawing attention to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) my hon. Friend will not embarrass him. I am sorry that the hon. Member has made a decision to leave the House. He has made a great contribution, particularly in the matter of amenities and his desire to improve them.
The Services Committee has been, and is now, considering this and there will be a report on one major matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I hope that my hon. Friends will be patient. We have worked very hard and I hope to be able to announce some positive results.

Sir F. Bennett: In his replies to the recent Private Notice Question about Gibraltar, the Foreign Secretary did not give attention to one aspect, the possible early release of Service land. It has been agreed that it could be released. This could make the biggest single contribution to the economy of Gibraltar now that people can no longer go to Gibraltar for a few days and then go to Spain. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an early date, if not next week soon after, for a debate on this important matter?

Mr. Peart: I should have thought that a suitable question to put to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary earlier. As the hon. Member was unable to do so, I shall try to make representations on his behalf.

Mr. Thorpe: Reverting to the question of writs for by-elections, particularly as the Patronage Secretary might be caught just before he leaves the Chamber, is the Leader of the House aware that we consider it is not good enough for him to say that this is not a matter for him? Will he make representations to the Patronage Secretary—whom we are all delighted to see is now coming back into the Chamber—that we expect a statement from him next week? The electors of Swindon have been without an effective Member of Parliament for nearly one year.

Hon. Members: More than that.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: On a point of order. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the former Member for Swindon was doing his duty in this House until December last, when he fell ill and was sent away by the doctors?

Mr. Thorpe: Further to that point of order. Although, naturally, I respect whatever the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) says, I cannot withdraw what I said, namely, that for a period of the year the electors of Swindon have not had the services of a full-time Member of Parliament and have relied on alternative resources.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman knows that there were factors, which have been mentioned by my right hon. Friend. This is a matter for the Patronage Secretary.

Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend was not particularly clear about the Regulations relating to teeth and spectacle charges. Following the pressure he has had from the Leader of the Opposition, will he not take this back to the Cabinet, as we do not want to see the Regulations now or in the future?

Mr. Peart: I cannot add to what I have said.

Mr. Moonman: Are representations to be made to the Leader of the House through the Government concerning the implementation of the Seebohm Committee's Report? Will my right hon. Friend take note of Motion No. 353—
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to follow up the publication of the Royal Commission on Local Government with its promise for action on the Seebohm Committee Report to ensure the formation of a unified social service department in each local authority and one central Government department to be responsible for overseeing the social services, providing overall national planning and for conducting and co-ordinating research.]

Mr. Peart: We have had representations on this very important matter and I take note of it.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Can the Leader of the House tell us which organising genius within the Government decided to have Welsh Questions first on Tuesday next, in view of the fact that it happens to be the day of the Investiture of the Prince of Wales?

Mr. Peart: I do not think that one should worry about Tuesday. I think that adequate arrangements have now been made through the usual channels.

Mr. Wellbeloved: In view of the effect on the retail price of meat of the Government's decision to implement the Northumberland Committee's Report, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that we shall debate that Report before the House goes into Recess?

Mr. Peart: No, I cannot give that undertaking, but my hon. Friend should not be too pessimistic.

Mr. Tapsell: As it appears that the Patronage Secretary is now allowed to speak uninvited at Cabinet meetings, can

not that facility be extended to him in the House in connection with the pending by-elections?

Mr. C. Pannell: Referring to the debate, I understand next Friday, on the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, will the Government table as soon as possible any Motions they intend to bring before the House arising from the Report? This is a very complex matter. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to think over any projected steps about privilege before the day of the debate.

Mr. Peart: I appreciate the view of my right hon. Friend. I tabled Motions, but on second thoughts I considered that it would be better to have a general debate and to hear the view of the House. This is not a party matter. I believe that Parliament should express itself on this very important Report.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he proposes to restore to private Members the day for legislation which he took from them on 13th June?

Mr. Peart: I did not take it in that sense. I am trying very much to help private Members?

Mr. E. Rowlands: Will my right hon. Friend be more explicit about the arrangements for Welsh Questions next Tuesday? Are Questions to be answered by someone other than a Welsh Minister, or postponed to another day?

Mr. Peart: This will be settled through the usual channels.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that we have long debates ahead.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Has the Leader of the House observed that we are sitting later and later consistently at night? Is this some form of collective punishment? How does it square with the reforming zeal of his predecessor in office?

Mr. Peart: If hon. Members made their speeches shorter and with moderation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am anxious that sittings should finish before midnight every night and that we should achieve the target of breaking up at the end of July.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Now that at long last we have had a Government reply to the latest Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, can my right hon. Friend tell us when we shall have the chance to debate that reply?

Mr. Peart: I cannot say; certainly not next week.

Mr. Peyton: The Leader of the House told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the Regulations relating to teeth and spectacle charges would be laid at an appropriate date. While no one would be so optimistic as to expect him to be precise, could the Leader of the House be just a little less vague than he has been?

Mr. Peart: I cannot add to what I have said. I hope that the hon. Member appreciates this.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Has my right hon. Friend noticed a new Motion on the Order Paper—
[That this House supports the application of the Heathrow Campaign Committee for a public tribunal to inquire into the aircraft noise in the vicinity of London Airport.]
This supports the application of the Heathrow Campaign Committee for a tribunal to inquire into the aircraft noise in the vicinity of London Airport. Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate, if not next week, in the week after?

Mr. Peart: I have noticed the Motion. This is an important matter, but adequate machinery for consultation about noise in the vicinity of the airport exists. But we cannot have a debate next week.

Mr. Peel: As the Patronage Secretary is also the Deputy Leader of the House, why cannot we have a statement about when the Writs are to be moved for the by-elections?

Mr. Peart: He is not, actually.

Mr. Dickens: In view of my right hon. Friend's encouraging remarks about the forthcoming report from the Services Committee on the appallingly bad services available to Members, can we now have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that that report and the three

preceding reports will come before the House before we rise for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Peart: Yes, I hope to make this material available to hon. Members.

Captain W. Elliot: Is the Leader of the House aware that on Friday last, when the House was debating Private Members' Motions, the debate on the second Motion was drawing to a close, with the Minister on his feet and reaching the end of his speech and with nobody else on the Government benches, when the Patronage Secretary entered the Chamber, left a minute later, and very soon afterwards half a dozen of his hon. Friends entered the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the merits or demerits of what happened last Friday. The hon. and gallant Gentleman can ask for time to discuss it.

Captain Elliot: I was just about to do that. The result of that action was that my important Motion—
[To call attention to the chaotic and damaging situation in the London docks; and to move, That this House, mindful of the fact that to a great trading nation, such as Great Britain, the efficient working of the ports in general is vital if we are to achieve solvency, and recognising that the Port of London, handling as it does a very large proportion of all exports and imports, is of special importance, expresses anxiety that the progress being made in the London docks in modernisation both of method and machinery and in the achievement of greater efficiency is not proceeding at a faster pace; recognises the complex and difficult problems to be solved, many as a result of habits and prejudices ingrained in those working in the London docks at all levels, and springing from a past and often difficult history; notes the progress which has been made although as yet by no means amounting to a general advance; expresses admiration for the example set in some areas of the London docks and which need not fear comparison with any similar industry in the world; nevertheless is of the opinion that modern development in the techniques of moving goods through the ports, and now available, must be exploited urgently and to the full in the London


docks if this country is not to fall behind its foreign competitors; urges all those engaged to rid themselves of the disruptive elements in the London docks and press on with their great efforts to modernise and streamline this section of the industry and thus bring prosperity and security to all those engaged in it and at the same time help the competitive trade position of this country; and finally urges the Government not to attempt to nationalise this part of the industry because this will lead, as with other nationalised industries, to higher costs, a rigid non-competitive structure and further burdens on the nation and thus check the progress at present being made towards a brighter future.]—
did not get an opportunity to be debated. Was not this a gross misuse of the procedures of the House? I was told at the time—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have helped the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I have advised him what to do. He can ask for time to discuss his Motion.

Captain Elliot: In view of this procedure, will the Leader of the House find time for my Motion to be debated?

Mr. Peart: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman studies the precedents, he will find that it is not unusual for only two Motions to be debated on a Friday. The second Motion was a very important one, on the abolition of slavery. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Motion was not discussed, but I cannot find time.

Mr. Pavitt: In arranging next week's business, will my right hon. Friend ignore the reporting of non-events, even in the most respected organs of the Press, and pressure from the other side of the House, and take, as usual, a cool and balanced judgment on the timing of the business of the House?

Mr. Peart: I always take a cool and balanced judgment.

Mr. Dean: The right hon. Gentleman has been unable to say when the Regulations relating to increased charges for teeth and spectacles will be laid. In view of the new crop of conflicting statements about the Government's intentions on this important matter, is not the House

at least entitled to a statement on Monday by the Secretary of State for Social Services after social security Questions?

Mr. Peart: I agree that this is a very important matter. I understand the feeling of hon. Members on both sides, but I cannot go beyond what I have said.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I again remind the House that we are to debate the Housing Bill. There are many Amendments to that Bill to be discussed.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is the Leader of the House aware that many hon. Members on this side are becoming increasingly concerned about the number of questions asked by hon. Members opposite on the levels of aid in development areas and that we are now satisfied that the Leader of the Opposition and his party are intent upon scaling down considerably—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is by no means a business question. If the hon. Gentleman cannot frame a business question, he must sit down.

Mr. Leadbitter: We are satisfied on this side that there is a need for a debate on the levels of aid in development areas as a matter of urgency? Will my right hon. Friend provide time for such a debate next week?

Mr. Peart: I regret that I cannot accede to my hon. Friend's request.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the Leader of the House ensure that next week, on his return, the Secretary of State for Defence makes a full statement on the Canberra talks? Looking further forward, will the Leader of the House also ensure, in view of the interest in Gibraltar, Rhodesia, Europe and many other questions, that there is satisfactory foreign affairs debate before the House rises?

Mr. Speaker: Only one business question at once.

Mr. Peart: I will convey the views of the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence when he returns. Such a statement could be appropriate, but I hope that I shall not be held to be bound by this. I will examine the hon. Gentleman's second suggestion sympathetically.

Mr. Luard: Reverting to the request by a number of hon. Members over recent weeks for a debate on the seabed and on the future international régime of the seabed, can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that even if we cannot have a debate next week we shall have a debate on this important subject before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Peart: I cannot be specific. I agree that the whole question of marine technology and oceanography is a most important topic, with wide international ramifications. I will consider the question.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Last week my right hon. Friend told me that he would have a word with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Technology, about our having a short debate on the subject of the closure of S. G. Brown, at Watford. Has my right hon. Friend had a talk with the Minister, and, if so, with what results?

Mr. Peart: Yes. I always convey the views of my hon. Friends to the Ministers concerned. However, I cannot be specific about a debate. I know that my hon. Friend is, rightly, pressing this important matter, because it affects his area.

Mr. Winnick: Although we debated this very serious subject in March, will my right hon. Friend give consideration to the question of our having another debate very soon on the subject of the Nigerian war, in view of reports that starvation faces a very large number of people living in Biafra?

Mr. Peart: I cannot make a promise, but I note my hon. Friend's request.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Once again, I ask the Leader of the House, sadly and hopefully, whether he can find time next week for my Motion on the subject of cars for disabled persons?
[That this House is of opinion that Clause 12 of the regulation relating to disabled persons' cars, which provides that when the child or children of the disabled person reaches the age of 14 years or ceases to depend on the disabled person the car will not be replaced, by substituting a later age which will enable the disabled person to continue his or her care of the relevant child or children.]

Mr. Peart: My hon. and learned Friend has been very assiduous and persistent on this very important matter. I understand his point of view, but I cannot arrange a debate for next week.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members will find the appropriately amended selection lists. There are two minor alterations. First, we are debating Amendment No. 175 with Amendment No. 23. Secondly, there is a minor alteration in the selection list which I will deal with when it arises.

Clause 8

STANDARD GRANTS

Amendment No. 21 made: In page 6, line 3, leave out from first 'a' to second 'of' in line 4 and insert 'term of years absolute'.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we have many Amendments before us. Reasonably brief speeches and debates will help us.

Clause 9

CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR STANDARD GRANT

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 7, line 3, after "1961" insert "or that section".
The Amendment is designed to meet a point made by hon. Members opposite. It is a drafting Amendment to deal with the reconciliation of Section 21 of the 1961 Act and Orders made thereunder with straight Section 15 Orders. Both are necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: We come now to Amendment No. 24, which is to delete Clauses 13 to 16. With this Amendment I suggest that we should discuss the following Amendments: No. 28, in page 12, line 10, leave out subsection (3).

No. 36, in page 16, line 16, leave out from "Act" to end of line 19.

No. 43, in page 18, line 16, leave out subsection (2).

No. 84, in page 30, line 31, leave out "and not repaid".

No. 121, in page 46, line 35, leave out "6(4) or 14(1)" and insert "or 6(4)".

No. 122, in page 46, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 40.

No. 159, in page 67, line 1, leave out paragraph 6.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order. It seems to me that Amendment No. 111, in page 42, line 10, at end insert:
'but where any such payment is made after the commencement of this Act, that payment shall be a charge on the property registered in favour of the local authority in the Land Charges Register and shall be set against any subsequent application for improvement grant by the person who is entitled to an interest in the house, where that person is not the same as the person to whom the payment was made'.
could also come into this group.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful for the suggestion. I must have missed that one. If there is no objection, so be it. We will add it to the list.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 8, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 on page 10.
This is an important Amendment, because it abandons the condition that a house must be kept for three years after a grant has been received in respect of it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The consensus of opinion between the two Front Benches and the two sides of the House, I am reminded, ignores the fact that Amendment No. 111 is a Liberal Amendment.

Hon. Members: Where are they?

Mr. Speaker: I would not include that Amendment in the group without approval from them, as they would expect their Amendment to come on much later. If they come in, we shall ask them. If they do not, we shall take the Liberal Amendment separately. I must be fair to minorities.

Mr. MacColl: The limit was originally 20 years, which was reduced to 10 and is now three. After careful consideration


of all the facts my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that it was just as well to get rid of it altogether.
In any case, as was pointed out by hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Dunnett), we would have to do something about leasehold. In view of the increased importance attached to owner-occupation and encouraging property going into owner-occupation, it seems that the limit is not really necessary now. This is a substantial Amendment to the Bill, but it is a move in the right direction.

Mr. Peter Walker: We on this side of the House approve all the Amendments. They are very sensible, and we only wish that the same principle had been applied when we last discussed the question of transferring grants on Report. But I am pleased that the Government have come to this conclusion, and we shall support the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17

SPECIAL GRANT

Amendment made: No. 25 in page 11, line 7, leave out from 'a' to 'of' in line 9 and insert 'term of years absolute'.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Clause 20

CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS GRANTS

Amendment made: No. 28 in page 12, line 10, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Clause 22

IMPROVEMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment selected is No. 29, with which I suggest we take Amendments No. 30 in page 13, line 27, after '£1,250' insert:
'or, in the case of a dwelling within the area of the Greater London Authority £2,500'.
No. 33, in page 15, line 19, after '£1,000', insert:
'or for each dwelling within the area of the Greater London Authority £1,250'.

And No. 34, in page 15, line 33, after £1,250', insert:
'or, in the case of a dwelling within the area of the Greater London Authority £2,500'.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Silvester: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 13, line 14, after '£1,000' insert:
'or for each dwelling within the area of the Greater London Authority £1,250'.
This group of Amendments affects only the Greater London area. Their purpose is to raise the amount of Government grants for improvements generally from £1,000 to £1,250, and to increase the amount for improvements to a property which a local authority or housing association also has to purchase from £1,250 to £2,500.
The costs of housing in London greatly exceed those in other parts of the country. The Ministry recognise that there is a special situation in London by having a London weighting in the Rate Support Grant. In its Circular 31/69 it gave a 20 per cent. London weighting in the revised housing cost yardstick.
Experience in my borough suggests that the cost of an improvement running up to £2,000 is not uncommon. When one is dealing with the cost of improvement plus the cost of acquisition the limits written into the Bill hit London boroughs very severely.
According to the Co-operative Permanent Building Society, in the last quarter of 1968 the average cost of a house in London was £5,033, while in the North-West, for example, it was £2,500. Although prices vary from area to area, that difference is not uncommon. In my constituency a property which would be worth improving could cost about £3,500. It is unlikely that one could buy one for less. My Amendment would still allow for £1,500 for improvement, which would just about be adequate. If we left it at £1,250 the Government would be contributing inadequate amounts to the costs of the acquisition and improvement.
Another effect of the Bill as it stands would be to provide an incentive to pull down buildings and rebuild rather than to improve, and that is not something that the Bill seeks to encourage. We are seeking to renovate existing areas in which people have become accustomed


to living and make them better places to live in.
My local authority has worked out an example of what happens under the present system of housing subsidies and what would happen under the Bill. If a place is acquired and completely demolished and rebuilt, the council receives a subsidy of £204 per unit under the present subsidies. At present rents this represents a deficiency to the housing revenue account of £56 per unit. Under the Bill, if it acquires property and improves it it receives a subsidy of £96 a unit, which on the same rent assumption would produce a deficiency in the housing revenue account of £210 a unit, which is four times as great. In those circumstances, it will clearly think much more in terms of pulling down and rebuilding than of improving.
I understand that the London Boroughs Association supports the idea behind the Amendment and is making representations to the Minister. I hope that he will be able to say what his intentions with regard to the Greater London area are.
There are powers in the Bill for the Minister to make variations. It does not specifically say that they will be regional variations. It is odd that in some things like rates and rateable value it is not uncommon to treat Greater London differently from the rest of the country. The rates in the Bill are inadequate for the purposes required, and it seems to me unreasonable not to make this Amendment and put in the higher figures from the start.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 extend the same principles to housing associations as local authorities.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I very much appreciate the point the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) has made. It is one with which all of us must have some sympathy, but I hope to be able to persuade the House that the Amendment is not necessary.
My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary told the Standing Committee that we are already in discussion at officer level with the London authorities on this subject. As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, by virtue of Clauses 22(3) and 25(5)

I have power to approve costs above the normal amount in particular cases and classes of cases. It is a discretion extending both to cases where works only are concerned and also where acquisitions for improvement or conversion are concerned. Therefore, we have the power to make this variation, and we had better see how the talks with the London local authorities go. It might be undesirable to include in the Act special reference to London, as other parts of the country may put in a claim for similar or comparable treatment.
I must ask the House to resist the Amendment.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I support the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester). Although I do not represent a London constituency, I can speak with some experience of what it costs to have ordinary household tasks done in London. When I came down South I was horrified. Perhaps there is a case for other regional variations, but at present this is the outstanding one and I would like to see it incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. Oscar Murton: I, too, support the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman's attitude is extraordinary, since we accept the principle in the Rent Acts and the Leasehold Reform Act that rateable values are higher in London than in the provinces. This presupposes that higher rents are obtainable and the fact that costs are higher in London and that, therefore, rents are higher. To be logical, surely London should be treated as a special case in this Bill.

Mr. Greenwood: Anything that would spare the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) from being horrified would have my enthusiastic support. I hope that the House will realise that I have genuine sympathy with what is proposed. I can say that the talks with the London authorities are going well and I hope that we shall be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion which will please both them and us.
I hope that the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) will not persist with his Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: We appreciate the sympathy which the right hon. Gentleman has shown towards the Amendment.


My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) made out a very strong case for it. It is well known that the wages of building operatives in London are much greater than elsewhere and increases in costs in London for building repairs and improvements have been recognised in the cost yardstick. We recognise the differential between London and the rest of the country in the Rent Acts and the Leasehold Reform Act.
Although the Minister has power to approve an increase of this sort, and discussions are going on, we would wish to record our view in the Division Lobby that London is such a special case that the Bill should recognise it. It may be that, later, the figure ought to be increased still further but to have in the

Bill a clear differential at this stage would, I am sure, be of great assistance in its administration. For that reason, we would like to record this fact in the Bill itself.

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has given me my case in referring to the special cost yardstick for London. A special cost yardstick for London is not included in the Statute. It is an administrative arrangement, made by the Minister, of exactly the same kind that we have in mind in the case of the proposition before us at the moment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 166.

Division No. 291.]
AYES
[4.23 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Pym, Francis


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Astor, John
Hawkins, Paul
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Awdry, Daniel
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Ridsdale, Julian


Batsford, Brian
Heseltine, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Higgins, Terence L.
Royle, Anthony


Bell, Ronald
Hill, J. E. B.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hirst, Geoffrey
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Black, Sir Cyril
Hooson, Emlyn
Scott, Nicholas


Body, Richard
Hunt, John
Sharples, Richard


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Silvester, Frederick


Brewis, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Sinclair, Sir George


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jopling, Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kershaw, Anthony
Speed, Keith


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kimball, Marcus
Stainton, Keith


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Carlisle, Mark
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Tapsell, Peter


Channon, H. P. G.
Lane, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Chataway, Christopher
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Clark, Henry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Clegg, Walter
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Cooke, Robert
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Corfield, F. V.
Longden, Gilbert
van Straubenzee, W. R.




Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lubbock, Eric
Vickers, Dame Joan


Crouch, David
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Waddington, David


Dance, James
McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Doughty, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Monro, Hector
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Errington, Sir Eric
Montgomery, Fergus
Walters, Dennis


Eyre, Reginald
More, Jasper
Weatherill, Bernard


Fortescue, Tim
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Foster, Sir John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wiggins, A. W.


Gibson-Watt, David
Murton, Oscar
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Goodhew, Victor
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Grant, Anthony
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Worsley, Marcus


Gresham Cooke, R.
Peel, John



Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pounder, Rafton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Prior, J. M. L.
Mr. Timothy Kitson.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boston, Terence


Archer, Peter
Beaney, Alan
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Bidwell, Sydney
Bradley, Tom


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bishop, E. S.
Brooks, Edwin


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Booth, Albert
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)




Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Cant, R. B.
Hunter, Adam
Paget, R. T.


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John
Palmer, Arthur


Chapman, Donald
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Park, Trevor


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Janner, Sir Barnett
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pentland, Norman


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Judd, Frank
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Kelley, Richard
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)




Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rankin, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lawson, George
Rees, Merlyn


Dobson, Ray
Leadbitter, Ted
Richard, Ivor


Doig, Peter
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Driberg, Tom
Luard, Evan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunn, James A.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roebuck, Roy


Dunnett, Jack
McCann, John
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Eadie, Alex
MacColl, James
Rowlands, E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Macdonald, A. H.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McGuire, Michael
Sheldon, Robert


Ellis, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Skeffington, Arthur


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackintosh, John P.
Slater, Joseph


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Maclennan, Robert
Small, William


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (G'gow, C.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fernyhough, E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Symonds, J. B.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Taverne, Dick


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon, (Bootle)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Forrester, John
Marquand, David
Wallace, George


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Gardner, Tony
Mendelson, John
Weitzman, David


Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wellbeloved, James


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Molloy, William
Whitaker, Ben


Gregory, Arnold
Moonman, Eric
Whitlock, William


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Harper, Joseph
Murray, Albert
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Newens, Stan
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip



Hilton, W. S.
Ogden, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hooley, Frank
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Neil McBride.


Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Silvester: I beg to move Amendment No. 31 in page 13, line 33, leave out 'three-quarters of'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): We shall discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 32, in Clause 23, leave out 'three-quarters of'; and Amendment No. 35, in Clause 25, leave out 'three-quarters of'.

Mr. Silvester: This Amendment refers not only to Greater London, but to the whole country. The effect would be to leave the Government paying a contribution equal to the whole of the annual loan charge on the allowable cost. That may sound generous, but the allowable cost is only half the actual cost of acquiring a house or improving it. So the real effect would be that the Government paid 50 per cent. of the total cost.
Under the present arrangements, the Government pay three-quarters of the allowable cost, which is half the actual cost, so that they are paying, in fact, only three-eighths. The net effect of the Amendment, therefore, would be to raise the Government's contribution from three-eights to half.
Why is that desirable? Again, I make a comparison between new housing and housing improvement. The scheme under the Bill makes it more advantageous to pull down and build from scratch than to improve. Under the housing subsidy arrangements on new building at current rates, the Government pay a subsidy which is the difference between the representative rate and a 4 per cent. loan charge. The representative rate for this year is 7·07 per cent., and the Government are paying the difference. This


accounts for 39 per cent. of the loan charges which each council has to bear.
The current rates which local authorities have to pay are over 9 or 10 per cent. The representative rate for next year, therefore, is likely to be well in excess of 7·07 per cent. That means that the proportion of the loan charges which the Government will bear on new houses will rise from 3·07 per cent. to something over 4 per cent.; that is, more than half the loan charges on new building. Under the improvement scheme in the Bill, however, they will be paying only three-eighths.
We hope that at some time there will be a system allowing local authorities to borrow at considerably lower rates of interest, but until that time comes local authorities will face a problem: where they improve, they will have a smaller contribution from the Government than where they pull down and start afresh.
For that reason, at least temporarily, I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment to bring the two closer into line.

Mr. MacColl: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is coming out unequivocally in favour of subsidised rates of interest for council house borrowing. If he is, that is a helpful contribution. We are at the moment working on the principle that 4 per cent. determines the only subsidy to the rate of interest which is given.
The important thing here is to keep a balance between the private owner and the local authority owner. In Committee, my hon. Friend for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) pointed out that it seemed unfair that a local authority paid a different percentage in one case from the other. But the important factor is the amount of Exchequer contribution. The amount of Exchequer contribution is the same in both cases. In the case of the private owner, there is something extra out of the rates, and, equally, the council tenant can, if the local authority wishes, receive an extra rate contribution towards his rent.
The two positions are, therefore, the same if one takes it from the important point of view of the outside person, that is, the level of Exchequer contribution. The Exchequer is paying the same proportion in each case.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 26

POWER TO VARY CONTRIBUTIONS

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 16, line 16, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 19.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Clause 27

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR NOT APPROVING APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF FIXING LESS THAN MAXIMUM FOR IMPROVEMENT GRANT

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 16, line 36, leave out from 'shall' to 'in' in line 37 and insert 'state to the applicant'.
This Amendment is to give an automatic right where a grant has been refused so that the applicant shall know about it as a matter of course. Previously, he had to apply. There is no reason why an applicant should not know, and the Amendment would have that effect.

Mr. Graham Page: Clause 27 imposes on local authorities an obligation to state the reasons for refusing a grant. I notice that this Amendment, the effect of which the hon. Gentleman has explained, is in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why is he not here to move it himself? Is he frightened to do so? Is it not significant that the Chancellor has put down an Amendment which requires an authority to give an explanation without being asked for it?
Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take it to heart on other occasions and give the House an explanation without the House necessarily asking for it every time?

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28

ASSISTANCE FOR WORKS SPECIFIED IN APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS UNDER FORMER ENACTMENTS

Mr. Clegg: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 17, line 10, at end insert:
'or, alternatively (whether or not the works specified in the application have been begun)


if the application has been approved, shall upon request by the applicant vary the terms of approval of the application so that the approval shall be such as the local authority would have granted, had the application been made after the commencement of this Act'.
This is an echo of an Amendment moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), and a very wise Amendment it was. Unfortunately, the Government rejected it.
Clause 28 deals with the situation when an application has been made under the old law, and it provides that, if work has not begun—this is where we part company with the Government—the application may be withdrawn and a new one under the old law resubmitted in its place. Although that is a useful provision, it does not go far enough. Our Amendment would provide that, alternatively, whether or not the works specified in the application have been begun, if the application has been approved and if the applicant requests it, the authority shall vary the terms of the approval so that it will be what the authority would have granted had the application been made under the new legislation to start with.
In Committee, the Minister said that he had some sympathy with the similar Amendment which we then moved, but he also said that it would be difficult for a local authority to decide whether work had been started or started and finished. He was worried about reopening old cases and said that it would be difficult if the local authority had to inspect each job. We do not accept that any administrative difficulty is involved and we ask the House to adopt the Amendment.
I note one favourable change. It is recorded in HANSARD that on that day the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was wearing a purple shirt. Today, he is wearing a blue shirt. That gives us hope that he will agree with the Amendment.

Mr. Skeffington: I am sure that the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) realises that there is much more substance in the reason for accepting or rejecting the Amendment than the colour of certain habits of individuals, but I am glad that he takes so much interest in these matters.
As he said, we had a fairly long discussion on this subject in Committee and I promised to look at the matter again to see whether it were feasible to

mix up, as undoubtedly it would, applications under the two systems for grants. We have also had consultations with those who would have to administer the scheme. The practical advice which we have had, however much the hon. Member may think otherwise, is that it would cause a good deal of confusion.
Let me illustrate the problem. There is a scheme for which grant has been given. It may have been in operation for some time, perhaps a year or more before the new Act comes into operation. The Act may come into operation this year and the grant may have been given last year. A good deal of work on the scheme has already been done in the offices of the engineer's department. If, in the light of the new Act, it becomes necessary to look at all these responsibilities again, the marrying up of the various sets of papers will demand extra work and time, with the possibility of mistakes. No doubt, in the overall interest of the applicant, that might be overcome, and authorities would not stick too hard on that objection if there were a strong desire for this to be done.
But the technical objections to the Amendment is the fact that the authority is likely to be drawn into disputes in relation to old houses which are extremely difficult to settle—disputes whether the repairs or some of the repairs on old property were completed before the Act came into force. Hon. Members with experience of dealing with old properties to which various repairs have been carried out will recognise that some repairs may be done in the spring and that the builder, for various reasons, may then leave the property and return later in the summer to complete the repairs. The advice which we have had from those who have to do the job is that the Amendment would involve them in disputes which it would be extremely difficult for them to settle satisfactorily either to themselves or to the applicant.
May I state the position under the Bill? If an application for grant has been made but the work has not been started, it is easy to switch to the new system. But once the work has been started, there is a difficulty, for the reasons which I have given. Consequently, on practical grounds, and certainly not only on doctrinal grounds, I ask the Opposition not to press the Amendment.
Further, under the new system of grants we have what is regarded as a comprehensive and in many ways a package deal. There are benefits but there are also new responsibilities. The system will operate satisfactorily if it is considered as a whole. But if we attach to it another system which is already in operation, we shall have administrative problems, apart from the practical problems to which I have referred. It is, therefore, very much in the interests of the authorities who have to work the grant system that the Amendment should not be pressed.
I remind the House that the Amendment would involve an additional obligation at a time when we want local authorities to get ahead with the new system, under which they may be dealing with a number of improvement areas and in some cases with hundreds of applications. If we place this additional administrative burden on them for no very great advantage, it would be unfair and possibly unworkable.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: We find the Minister's reply disappointing. The subject was debated thoroughly in Committee,

and therefore, I will not prolong the debate, except to say that all of us who have supported the Bill have as our main fear the fact that not enough advantage will be taken of its provisions and that even if these grants are available, there will not be as many applications as we should all like to see. This Amendment would to some extent assist in increasing the number of applications.

In his reply the Minister outlined the bureaucratic difficulties which might emerge. I felt that he had not his heart in his answer for, after spending two or three minutes on the first objection, he said that even if that objection were put aside in the interests of the applicants, there were further bureaucratic difficulties. The failure to have a provision such as this in earlier Acts resulted in many people not obtaining grants who would otherwise have applied for them.

This is a very useful Amendment, and I ask my hon. Friends to divide the House on it.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 126, Noes 168.

Division No. 292.]
AYES
[4.47 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gibson-Watt, David
Montgomery, Fergus


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
More, Jasper


Astor, John
Goodhart, Philip
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grant, Anthony
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Awdry, Daniel
Gresham Cooke, R.
Murton, Oscar


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bell, Ronald
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Peel, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pounder, Rafton


Body, Richard
Hawkins, Paul
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Prior, J. M. L.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pym, Francis


Brewis, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hirst, Geoffrey
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bryan, Paul
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, Julian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Royle, Anthony


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Channon, H. P. G.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Chataway, Christopher
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott, Nicholas


Clark, Henry
Kimball, Marcus
Sharples, Richard


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cooke, Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Silvester, Frederick


Corfield, F. V.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sinclair, Sir George


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lane, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Crouch, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Speed, Keith


Dance, James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stainton, Keith


Doughty, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Longden, Gilbert
Tapsell, Peter


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Errington, Sir Eric
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Foster, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.




van Straubenzee, W. R.
Walters, Dennis
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Weatherill, Bernard
Worsley, Marcus


Vickers, Dame Joan
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William



Waddington, David
Wiggin, A. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. Hector Monro.


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek






NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Orbach, Maurice


Anderson, Donald
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Orme, Stanley


Archer, Peter
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Oswald, Thomas


Armstrong, Ernest
Harper, Joseph
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Paget, R. T.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hattersley, Roy
Palmer, Arthur


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hilton, W. S.
Park, Trevor


Beaney, Alan
Hooley, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bishop, E. S.
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Pavitt, Laurence


Boston, Terence
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brooks, Edwin
Hunter, Adam
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hynd, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Price, William (Rugby)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Hug&amp;h (Putney)
Rankin, John


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rees, Merlyn


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Richard, Ivor


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Chapman, Donald
Judd, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Coleman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Roebuck, Roy


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, Clifford
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rowlands, E.


Crawshaw, Richard
Lawson, George
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, John (Reading)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Luard, Evan
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Joseph


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
McCann, John
Small, William


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
MacColl, James
Snow, Julian


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Macdonald, A. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dobson, Ray
McGuire, Michael
Symonds, J. B.


Doig, Peter
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Taverne, Dick


Driberg, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Dunn, James A.
Mackintosh, John P.
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
Maclennan, Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Eadie, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wallace, George


Ellis, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


English, Michael
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Weitzman, David


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Marks, Kenneth
Whitlock, William


Faulds, Andrew
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Mendelson, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Moonman, Eric
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Forrester, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Gardner, Tony
Murray, Albert



Ginsburg, David
Newens, Stan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Gregory, Arnold
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Neil McBride.


Grey, Charles (Durham)

Clause 29

SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO PARSONAGES, ALMSHOUSES, ETC.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 39 in, page 17, line 14, after first 'of', insert 'glebe land or'.
This Amendment allows an application for an improvement grant or a standard grant to be made in respect of a glebe

house by a sequestrator when a benefice is vacant. It is being made at the request of the Church Commissioners.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 166, in page 17, line 26, at end insert:
(d) an application for such a grant made by a beneficiary who has a life interest in the dwelling-house to which the application relates


or to the proceeds of sale thereof, the free simple absolute or the terms of years absolute being vested in trustees.
To put the argument for the Amendment, I must, first, turn back to Clause 2(6), which provides that a local authority
shall not entertain an application for an improvement grant unless they are satisfied that the applicant has, in every parcel of land on which the works specified in the application are to be or have been carried out, an interest which is either an estate in fee simple".
in possession—
or a tenancy …
for a term of years absolute.
We have said before that the provisions of the Bill which relate to who shall be entitled to apply for a grant are far too rigid. By an earlier Amendment, we have abolished the conditions which would apply to the owner of property who receives a grant, so there is no longer any need to be rigid about the person who applies for the grant. While it was still to be a condition that the person receiving the grant, if he sold the property, should repay the grant, and, if he retained the grant, must keep the property for letting, and so on, there was some point in saying that the person to whom the grant was paid must be a freeholder or a substantial leaseholder. But that is no longer necessary and we should go a little further in looking for the person who is to benefit from the improvement.
Clause 29 lists some exceptions to Clause 2(6) because of unusual forms of tenure. It excepts some church property, almshouses, the manse and custodian trustees of charities. But these are rather rare birds—the sequestrator of the profits of an ecclesiastical benefice, the trustee managing a trust estate of the residence of a minister, the custodian trustee of a charity and even the prospective purchaser from a local authority. They are all rather rare birds, but there is a type of owner who is not rare and who ought to be entitled to make an application for an improvement grant, and that is the beneficiary under a trust.
To take a simple example, a dwelling-house is left to the widow on trust for sale, the widow having the right to live in the house during her lifetime, with, perhaps, the provision that it shall not be sold without her consent. Why must she be put to the trouble of going to her trustees and persuading them to make an

application for the grant? She will be the person benefiting.
I use the example of the widow as an easy one, but there are other types of trust where the beneficiary is in residence and will be the person who will benefit from the grant. In the example which I have given, the widow would be increasing the value of the property, so that there can be no damage to the remainder-man. She is improving the property for the benefit of those ultimately entitled to the trust.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington: It is true that the Amendment would allow the beneficiary to apply, but it would not allow the beneficiary of the trust to do the work.

Mr. Graham Page: Perhaps that could be put right in another place. I have not examined that, as I was dealing with the simple point of who can apply for the grant. Surely the beneficiary should have a right to carry out improvements to the property.
The Law of Property Bill is going through the House at the moment, and, if the law needs a little alteration this could perhaps be done in that Bill. We should not be so rigid in laying down who should be the applicant, but should give the person who will benefit from the improvements a right to go to the local authority and ask for a grant to improve his house.

Mr. Skeffington: Whether or not the Bill is too rigid is not relevant to the Amendment. We have looked at this carefully and, having taken advice, our view is that the Amendment is unnecessary. It would allow the beneficiary to apply for the grant but not to carry out the works.
One difficulty of dealing with the 1925 and 1926 Acts in connection with trusts is that what the trustees, the beneficiaries, and tenants for life can do is rigidly bound up in Section after Section, and a greater modification of the law would be needed than is suggested in the Amendment.
However, the hon. Gentleman has stated the principle, and I will deal with that. Where the trustees are perfectly willing to carry out improvements needed by the beneficiary for life, how this is to be done is carefully prescribed, but the


requisite authority is in Section 28 of the Law of Property Act. The Section provides that the trustees are under an obligation to consult the beneficiary before they can so act, and there is no difficulty provided that there is nothing in the trust deed which specifically limits the trustees.
Where the beneficiary wants something done and the trustees will not do it, the beneficiary can make an application to the trustees, who are obliged to consider his request. If the trustees refuse, the ordinary law is that the beneficiary can apply to the court under Section 30, and the court will decide whether the refusal of the trustees is reasonable.
As the hon. Gentleman hinted, in the simple case of a widow who is a life beneficiary, this may be a complicated way of going about an improvement grant, and I am inclined to agree with him. In that case, it would be necessary to consider the wider alteration of the whole of the settled trust legislation, and it could not be done by a side-wind in this Bill.
To sum up, a beneficiary may make application to the trustees, who are entitled to carry out the work, and there is no difficulty where the trustees are prepared to act. If they are not prepared to act, the beneficiary may apply to the court. The grant can then be applied for and the work done. Under the terms of the Amendment, the beneficiary would have to approach the trustee, since only the trustees can carry out work in connection with the trust.

Although I understand the concern of the hon. Gentleman, this type of occupier would not be denied a grant and to that extent the Amendment is unnecessary. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about greater freedom for tenants with life interests, this find an echo in my heart, but it cannot be done in the Bill.

Mr. Peter Walker: It may find an echo in the Minister's heart, but it does not find action from him. This matter was mentioned in Committee and the Minister promised to look at it. Had he looked at it with enthusiasm and diligence he would have found that, by good fortune, the Law of Property Bill was waiting for the carefully prepared Clause which he could have inserted. He could have accepted the Amendment and have faced all the beneficiaries under trusts in the knowledge that he had brought about an important, good, sensible reform.
Instead, the Minister has pointed out the difficulty of changing the Acts, in spite of the fact that the law of Property Bill is now before Parliament, and tells us, with some shame, the process which must be gone through if there is difficulty with the trustees. He says that he is in complete sympathy with the spirit of the Amendment. Therefore, to give him the opportunity of showing in the Lobby that he is with us in spirit, we intend to divide the House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 169.

Division No. 293.]
AYES
[5.9 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cooke, Robert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hawkins, Paul


Astor, John
Corfield, F. V.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Crouch, David
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Awdry, Daniel
Dance, James
Heseltine, Michael


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Higgins, Terence L.


Bell, Ronald
Doughty, Charles
Hill, J. E. B.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Errington, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip


Black, Sir Cyril
Eyre, Reginald
Hunt, John


Body, Richard
Fortescue, Tim
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)




Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Foster, Sir John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gibson-Watt, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Brewis, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Jopling, Michael


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Goodhart, Philip
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhew, Victor
Kershaw, Anthony


Bryan, Paul
Grant, Anthony
Kimball, Marcus


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gresham Cooke, R.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Channon, H. P. G.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Clark, Henry
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Lane, David


Clegg, Walter
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John




Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Longden, Gilbert
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Lubbock, Eric
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ridsdale, Julian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Royle, Anthony
Vickers, Dame Joan


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Waddington, David


Maddan, Martin
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Monro, Hector
Scott, Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Montgomery, Fergus
Sharples, Richard
Walters, Dennis


More, Jasper
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Weatherill, Bernard


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Silvester, Frederick
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sinclair, Sir George
Wiggin, A. W.


Murton, Oscar
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Speed, Keith
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stainton, Keith
Worsley, Marcus


Peel, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)



Pounder, Rafton
Tapsell, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Prior, J. M. L.
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Mr. Timothy Kitson.


Pym, Francis
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Ogden, Eric


Anderson, Donald
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Orbach, Maurice


Archer, Peter
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Orme, Stanley


Armstrong, Ernest
Harper, Joseph
Oswald, Thomas


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hattersley, Roy
Paget, R. T.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Palmer, Arthur


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hilton, W. S.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Beaney, Alan
Hooley, Frank
Park, Trevor


Bidwell, Sydney
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bishop, E. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Boston, Terence
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurence


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hunter, Adam
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brooks, Edwin
Hynd, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pentland, Norman


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rees, Merlyn


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Chapman, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Coleman, Donald
Judd, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Roebuck, Roy


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rowlands, E.


Dalyell, Tam
Lawson, George
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lee, John (Reading)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
McCann, John
Slater, Joseph



MacColl, James
Small, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Macdonald, A. H.
Snow, Julian


Dobson, Ray
McGuire, Michael
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Doig, Peter
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Symonds, J. B.


Driberg, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Taverne, Dick


Dunn, James A.
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Dunnett, Jack
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Eadie, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Urwin, T. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wallace, George


English, Michael
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Weitman, David


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Marks, Kenneth
Wellbeloved, James


Faulds, Andrew
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Whitlock, William


Fernyhough, E.
Mendelson, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Moonman, Eric
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Forrester, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Gardner, Tony
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ginsburg, David
Moyle, Roland



Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Murray, Albert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gregory, Arnold
Newens, Stan
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Mr. Neil McBride.

Clause 31

INTERPRETATION

Mr. Murton: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 18, line 9, at end insert:
'or in the case of alterations to a drainage system serving a dwelling house such alterations as are necessary to connect the house to a main drainage system whether or not the same are incidental to or needed as aforesaid for the purpose of making some other improvement fully effective'.
This Amendment raises what is probably one of the most fundamental issues in the Bill it may well be someone's Waterloo, but I hope not ours. It deals with the vexed question of why a water closet within a house cannot be included in the Bill whereas one outside the house is included in the Bill and eligible for grant when connected to main drainage.
The point was debated at length in Committee, when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
It is perfectly true that if the improvements cover matters such as insufficient drainage resulting from additional water flow from a house, and if other parts of the house were being repaired, the roof, for instance, a claim could be made under the Bill for the cost of connection to a main sewer. Anything which is genuinely in regard to an improvement which is subject to grant is covered. That should lessen some fears."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 6th May, 1969; c. 834.]
This is not a situation which arises only in rural areas. In my own constituency there is still a legacy of houses on cesspool drainage. Under a local health regulation, septic tanks are not permitted. The reason goes back some years in that there was a very serious typhoid epidemic which was traced to such a tank.
In the Borough of Poole there has been a great deal of heart-searching over the problem since, if someone has a water closet in his house and the time comes when main drainage is laid in the street, he is expected to pay for a connection from his house to a suitable point in the road.
On the other hand, if in a rural area or, possibly, in an urban area the owner of a house with an outside water closet decides that the time has come to bring it indoors and he obtains a grant for so doing, that grant automatically covers the drainage on his land up to the point of connection in the main road. This is completely anomalous.
The problem also arises in many houses where, as a first step to bringing them up to present standards of hygiene, a water closet has been installed but they have not yet got around to putting in a bath. It could well be that if the water closet is attached to a cesspool, when the bath is put in it will be found that the cesspool will not be large enough to take the flow. I know of many cases where people have got over that difficulty by turning the bath water into the nearest ditch. But this is not a hygienic principle. If they increased the size of the cesspool they would get a grant, but if they were to run the water from the bath plus the water closet into the main road and connect to the sewer they would not get a grant. To my mind this is absurd.
It might also be argued that main drainage as such obviously and indubitably is an improvement to a house. Those of us who have lived in houses without main drainage know that there is a certain restriction on their value when it comes to selling them. People nowadays are most alarmed at the thought of buying a house which has not got what we would call the "mod cons" suitably attached, working and running.
We contend that the Amendment should be accepted. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary in Committee talked about retrospective legislation and retrospecive payments. We are not asking that where this has happened in the past a grant should be given, but that in future cases there should be a grant.
We must also remember that local authorities, under their powers, will no longer undertake to empty a cesspool free of charge, except where people have an original agreement with possibly a rural district or an urban district council. Nowadays, if a house owner wants his cesspool emptied he has to pay for it. This, again, causes considerable hardship in smaller properties, which, naturally, are owned or tenanted by people with small incomes.
For all these reasons—and I make this impassioned plea because it is a fundamental of modern living—I contend that these words should be included.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I am glad to support the Amendment. I was extremely sorry that the Government


did not feel able to accept it in Committee. I understand the points made by my hon. Friend about the urban areas, but in not accepting the Amendment the Government would be striking a blow at rural areas, particularly in Westmorland, where there are many scattered communities and housing tends to be of a worse standard than in the urban areas.
Standards in the rural areas are now being brought up to what my hon. Friend described as "a fundamental of modern living". I hope that, as this drive is going forward to get better standards of housing in rural areas, every opportunity will be taken to give people in those areas the greatest possible assistance, when they want to connect up their houses to the main drainage system. It seems absurd that they should be excluded from having this advantage.
I can only underline everything that my hon. Friend has said. I urge the Government to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Martin Maddan: I also welcome and support the Amendment.
The occasions on which a grant may be obtained are somewhat of a jungle to hack through. I compliment my hon. Friend on the clarity with which he moved the Amendment. As I listened to him a thought occurred to me which perhaps he or, indeed, some other hon. Member may be able to elucidate for me. Main drainage is perhaps the greatest amenity, after electricity and water supply, that a house can have. But, by its nature, making a connection to it, particularly in country areas, is often a very expensive matter. The anomalies at present are such that it would be wise for a householder to build an outside loo at his own expense so as to be able to get a grant for the whole connection of his household to the main drainage.

Mr. Murton: indicated assent.

Mr. Maddan: My hon. Friend nods, so we can take that as certainly being the case.
Does that not underline the merit of my hon. Friend's Amendment? Would it not move the heart of the Government and cause them to try to introduce a little more rationality into a very complicated and anomalous position.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I should like to support my hon. Friend

the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton), who proposed this Amendment with considerable clarity, and my hon. Friends the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan).
As I am sure that the Minister is anxious to give a comprehensive reply and as we are all anxious to get this important matter right—there may not be an opportunity to return to it in future or, at any rate, for some time—I should like to deal with the question of the dwellinghouse which will never be connected with the main drainage. We must face the reality that there are such places.
I agree that if someone is trying to sell a house it is useful to say that it has main water supply and main drainage, but there are places which can never have those facilities. I hope that nothing in the Amendment or in the Bill, as the Government would like it to stay, will prejudice the position of people who have houses which will not be connected to the main drainage system because there will not be one in their locality. I hope that that will be taken into consideration in looking at the whole picture.

Mr. Skeffington: We had a long discussion about this matter upstairs. I am glad to have the chance to come back to it, because there has been this further period in which we have been able to review the whole basic principle.
The issue still is that this is a Bill providing substantial grants for improvements of various kinds. Where drainage can be legitimately connected—I use this in the physical and in the grammatical sense, as it were—with the improvement, the cost ranks for grant. But where it is a drainage problem as such, whatever may be the merits of helping—and there are various financial provisions whereby help can be given for connecting houses with the main drainage or new alternative systems—then that should be left to that legislation and those grants rather than bringing it into a Bill dealing in the main with improvements to old houses.
5.30 p.m.
That is still the issue, and in Committee I gave examples to which I shall not refer again, except to tell the House that in a number of cases in rural areas the


costs of connection to the main drainage, or to some form of septic tank, will qualify for grant. If a bathroom is installed in an old house and there is no adequate or proper provision for water to run away, connection to the main drainage is legitimate, and grants would be available.
It may be that even where minor work is being done to a row of cottages, connection to a main drain in the adjacent highway will rank for grant, provided the interests of the occupier are sufficient under the definition in the Bill, that is to say he is a freeholder, or a householder, or the owner of a leasehold interest for more than five years. If it can be shown that it is a proper improvement, it will qualify for grant.
Where we cannot go as far as the hon. Gentleman wants, and as far as the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) in Committee asked us to go, is to say that in those cases where there would be no improvement, but where it would be highly desirable for a main drainage connection, that connection should qualify for grant under the Bill. That is what the Amendment seeks to provide. We feel that this would be wrong because, apart from the financial commitments involved, other legislation is available by which this can be done. Taking that view, I think that we are adhering to the distinction which has been drawn by past Administrations.
A local authority can, if it wishes, connect to sewers under the authority given by Section 291 of the Public Health Act, 1936. If it cares to make a charge for that, the cost can be spread over 30 years. This work can also be done under the provisions of Section 13 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953, and all or part of the costs of connection can be waived. I am glad to say that the authority in which my premises were situated a few years ago did that and I did not have to pay.

Mr. Murton: Will the Minister perhaps remind some local authorities of the existence of those provisions, because in the borough of Poole a large amount of money has been charged to owner occupiers for connecting to main drainage. This has caused dreadful trouble in the past, and the same kind of thing is about to happen again.

Mr. Skeffington: It is a matter for the authorities concerned to take action under the Act which they prefer. They can use the Public Health Act, or the 1953 Act. In rural districts they can use the provisions of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Acts, of which there are a number. Under these Acts the cost of connecting a system from the curtilage to the drainage system ranks for grant at a rate of 35 per cent. This is an alternative provision which is available to rural authorities. Local authorities have a complete discretion to charge, or not to charge, for connecting to the main drainage system. Alternatively, they can spread the charge over thirty years, or give a substantial grant.

Mr. Peter Walker: What is the position of a local authority which borrows the money to lend it to someone for thirty years? If a local authority waives the cost of connecting, is any form of Government grant available?

Mr. Skeffington: I do not think that there is a grant when the cost is waived. In respect of loan charges, normally all the sums are put together in a budget for a period of years, which is sanctioned by our Ministry.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) asked how local authorities behave with regard to grants. My hon. Friend said that the local authority area in which he lived had provided a grant. Apparently no such grant is available in Poole. Is not this a question of my hon. Friend living in a Labour-controlled area, and the hon. Gentleman living in a Conservative-controlled area? That being so, would it not be to his advantage to vote Labour at the next election?

Mr. Skeffington: I think that I can give a satisfactory answer to that. My local authority changes hands from time to time. I cannot remember which party was in power when the grant was made.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: Is not the hon. Gentleman misleading the House by giving the impression that a local authority may pay the whole or part of the cost of connection? It is true that under Section 13 of the Public Health Act, 1936, a local authority can pay the cost of connection from the main drain in the highway up to the boundary of the owner's land, but this can be a


relatively small part of the cost. What a local authority cannot do is to pay for the cost of the connection from the road boundary up to the point where the lavatory is situated in the owner's house. It is this which often leads to the greatest cost.

Mr. Skeffington: I never deliberately try to mislead the House. I thought that what I said was clear. Householders, owner-occupiers and landlords are always responsible for the drainage within their curtilages. I thought I made it clear that what was covered was the cost of connection from the curtilage to the main drainage.
No one doubts that connection to main drainage is highly desirable, but what should rank for grant, or under which unbrella the grant should be paid, has been made clear by previous Administrations. Circular No. 29/62, which was issued in connection with the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958, the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959, and the Housing Act, 1961, set out the relevant provisions. Paragraph 20 (viii), under the heading
have a proper drainage system",
said:
Works of improvement within the curtilage of a dwelling approved for grant may include the cost of connection to an available nearby main drain. Grant is not payable where the work proposed is simply the change-over from one form of drainage to another, e.g. from a septic tank to main drainage.
In other words, where there is an improvement, grant can be paid, but where it is drainage as such, grant cannot be paid.
That is emphasised in paragraph 18 of the same Circular, which says:
Whether it is practicable to meet certain of these requirements may depend upon the availability of mains services. The responsibility for providing such services rests with the local authority or the appropriate statutory undertakers and grant should not be paid towards the cost of bringing services up to the curtilage of the dwelling.
For those reasons we think that while there are cases, such as I specified in Committee, where there are genuine improvements which should rank for grant, in the other instance which I have mentioned it should not be paid, and there

fore we think it right to maintain this provision in the Bill.

Mr. Peter Walker: I should immediately declare an interest in that my house is not on main drainage, but I must add that the political complexion of the rural district council is independent.
I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary was terribly lacking in conviction. What he was trying to say was that going over to main drainage was not an improvement. We consider it an important improvement. The powers of local authorities which he listed for assisting in drainage were not at all satisfactory. The loan for 30 years is not a very happy situation for anyone. I do not know what the interest rates would be, but they would probably be very large; the local authorities must borrow money, presumably, from the Public Works Loan Board, and currently the rates are 9¾ per cent., so it is no wonder that local authorities faced with giving this option would be loth to do so. The other option was that a local authority could pay for it altogether, but it is very unlikely in present circumstances that they would do this, with once again, the costs of borrowing money and the colossal burden which this would put on the ratepayers concerned.
Therefore, we maintain our position that in many of the rural areas and some urban areas it is essential to give the maximum encouragement for people to go on to main drainage. I am willing to admit that in the past drainage assistance has been dealt with elsewhere, but I would have thought that the time has come for both sides of the House to recognise that there is no better way of doing it than under this Amendment to this Bill. The points of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton)—for example, the absurdity that one can get a grant to increase the size of one's cesspool but not to go on to main drainage, show an acceptance by Governments that in their view changing from a cesspool to main drainage is not in itself an improvement.
Any of us who live in rural areas which are not on main drainage—

Mr. Skeffington: Of course it is an improvement, but one is a drainage improvement and the other is a housing improvement, and this is a housing Bill and not a drainage Bill.

Mr. Walker: But the Parliamentary Secretary has already said that the provisions available for drainage improvement are on the basis of local authorities deciding to waive the cost, and this is the only scope which remains for them. He also knows that, in the present plight of local authority finances there is no possibility that, given this alternative, they will be able to take it. The whole position of local authority financing at the moment is one of terrible strain. Where they have to borrow money, as they would have to in this case, it is on penal rates of interest. The advantage of the grants in the Bill is, first, that there is a substantial Government contribution, and that, therefore, the Government themselves would be devoting £40 million by 1972 to trying to encourage certain types of improvement in houses.
To say that drainage is not an improvement would be considered by most hon. Members an absolute absurdity. This is

a fundamental improvement, and one which we want to see increasing very fast. Those who live in rural areas or represent them will know how the problems connected with the emptying of cesspools are becoming a real difficulty and liability for local authorities; the charges which they have to make now both to tenants and to owners of property for that removal are becoming considerable. This in itself is another adverse effect on the housing problems of those areas.

Therefore, we think that it is perfectly sensible that grants should be available to assist in these domestic drainage problems. Having heard the Government's alternative, in a very poor and weak case, I would certainly urge my hon. Friends to divide.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 178.

Division No. 294.]
AYES
[5.43 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gurden, Harold
Prior, J. M. L.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pym, Francis


Astor, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Quennall, Miss J. M.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Awdry, Daniel
Hawkins, Paul
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Batsford, Brian
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Ridsdale, Julian


Bell, Ronald
Heseltine, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Higgins, Terence L.
Royle, Anthony


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hill, J. E. B.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Black, Sir Cyril
Hirst, Geoffrey
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Body, Richard
Holland, Philip
Scott, Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hunt, John
Sharples, Richard


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Brewis, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Silvester, Frederick


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Sinclair, Sir George


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Bryan, Paul
Jopling, Michael
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Speed, Keith


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Channon, H. P. G.
Kimball, Marcus
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Chataway, Christopher
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Tapsell, Peter


Clark, Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Cooks, Robert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lane, David
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Corfield, F. V.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Crouch, David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Crowder, F. P.
Longden, Gilbert
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dance, James
Lubbock, Eric
Vickers, Dame Joan


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Waddington, David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Doughty, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Walters, Dennis


Errington, Sir Eric
Maddan, Martin
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
Monro, Hector
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fortescue, Tim
Montgomery, Fergus
Wiggin, A. W.


Foster, Sir John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Gibson-Watt, David
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Murton, Oscar
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Goodhart, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhew, Victor
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Grant, Anthony
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gresham Cooke, R.
Peel, John
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pounder, Rafton
Mr. Jasper More.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch





NOES


Abse, Leo
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Newens, Stan


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip


Anderson, Donald
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Ogden, Eric


Archer, Peter
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Harper, Joseph
Orme, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oswald, Thomas


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hattersley, Roy
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Paget, R. T.


Beaney, Alan
Hilton, W. S.
Palmer, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Hooley, Frank
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bishop, E. S.
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Park, Trevor


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Boston, Terence
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurence


Brooks, Edwin
Hynd, John
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Pentland, Norman


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rees, Merlyn


Cant, R. B.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Richard, Ivor


Carmichael, Neil
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Chapman, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Roebuck, Roy


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Rowlands, E.


Crawshaw, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lee, John (Reading)
Sheldon, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Luard, Evan
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Joseph


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
McBride, Neil
Small, William


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
McCann, John
Snow, Julian


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
MacColl, James
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacDermot, Niall
Symonds, J. B.


Dobson, Ray
Macdonald, A. H.
Taverne, Dick


Doig, Peter
McGuire, Michael
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Driberg, Tom
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Tinn, James


Dunn, James A.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Urwin, T. W.


Dunnett, Jack
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wallace, George


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ellis, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Weitzman, David


English, Michael
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Whitlock, William


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Marks, Kenneth
Wilkins, W. A.


Faulds, Andrew
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fernyhough, E.
Mendelson, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Molloy, William
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Moonman, Eric
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Forrester, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gardner, Tony
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Gregory, Arnold
Murray, Albert

Amendment made: No. 43, in line 16, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. MacColl.]

Clause 32

GENERAL IMPROVEMENT AREAS

Mr. E. Rowlands: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 18, line 30, after 'and' insert:
'after a survey of the wishes and needs of residents in the area has been carried out'.

I am glad to be back discussing the Bill having been pining away outside the Committee.
The Amendment may be described as a "let the people have a say first" proposal. Its aim is to bring the provisions and procedures of the Bill applying to general improvement areas into line with the spirit of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, which is to allow those affected by a general improvement area decision to have a say in the matter at


the very earliest formative stages of the process.
At present the Clause and the relevant procedures under the Bill mean that local residents may not hear about a general improvement area decision until receiving formal notice of a council proposal or notification in the local newspaper. Too often major decisions affecting property and residents are first heard of either through the Press or after a decision has been taken. Too often local people find that decisions affecting their neighbourhood have been taken without adequate consultation and with little public involvement.
The Amendment would ensure that before an authority resolves to make a general improvement area decision, the people concerned would have an opportunity to express their wishes, feelings and opinions about the way in which their community should be improved. Some people have been sceptical about public participation in local planning matters. However, there is valuable evidence to show that local inhabitants can be of great assistance in the development of a plan. This could be particularly important in respect of improvement area schemes.
I have had experience of this as a result of conducting a survey with the Cardiff Housing Action Group at a residential area under a slum clearance order. In some instances we found that the unanimous views of the residents were in conflict with the local authority decision. People have varying attitudes towards their homes and environment. These views should be discovered before a local authority reaches a final decision to establish an improvement area scheme. It is sad to think that the valuable assistance which many inhabitants could give when plans of this kind are being made is not sought because there is a lack of public participation.
It is arrogant of planners, architects and local authorities to think that they know what the people want without consulting them. Even some imaginative schemes can turn out wrong because of architects making the mistake of thinking that everybody wants to live around a small Italian piazza. The Amendment would ensure public participation in the

matters with which we are concerned at the earliest formative stages of the process of declaring improvement areas.

Mr. James Allason: I support the Amendment. We should recognise that planning is done for people. There is a grave tendency these days for planners to design plans which please planners. We have had an example of this in the way in which tower blocks of flats have been scattered throughout the country simply because they accord with the aesthetic views of planners and architects, and not because they are wanted by the people. If there is to be an improvement area we must ensure that the people concerned, the local inhabitants, are consulted at the earliest possible stage.
While we talk a lot about public participation in planning, there is the danger of this participation occurring too late and too remotely. Many inhabitants do not want their premises and areas improved. For example, like the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), they prefer low rents. Regrettably, improvements cost money and invariably involve higher rents. Although public objections may be over-ruled for the greater good, there should be public participation at the earliest possible moment, and that is what the Amendment would achieve.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: I support this Amendment, particularly because I feel strongly that before any area is declared a general improvement area the wishes and needs of the people living there should be heard and taken into account. In subsection (2) instructions are given to local authorities to publish details of general improvement areas in two or more newspapers, and one of the newspapers should be a local paper. I cannot see that merely publishing details in a newspaper will ensure that all who will be affected will be aware of the plans and proposals which will affect them. Why should we believe that old people of necessity will read of these improvements when they are published in the newspapers?
The Minister—I suppose in Wales the Secretary of State—must be informed of the council's decision. These steps are of some value, but they will be taken after


a local authority has made its decision. Possibly when he replies my hon. Friend will say that Clause 35 adequately satisfies the demands of this Amendment. That Clause says:
it shall be their duty"—
the local authority's duty—
to bring to the attention of persons residing in the area or owning property therein the action they propose to take in the exercise of their powers under this Part of this Act and the assistance available for the improvement of the amenities of the area or of the dwellings therein …".
That is important, but it is a provision which applies only after the local authority has made its decision. This is a case of putting the cart before the horse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) and I do not speak against the idea of improvement areas nor against the right and duty of local authorities to make these decisions, but we think the people should be consulted before the decisions are finalised. We must have planners and plans, but the planners should realise that they are dealing with human beings, human lives, hopes, aspirations and needs. They must take into account the wishes and needs of residents of the area before they propose to replan it. Before any plan is drawn up the wishes and needs of those likely to be affected should be taken into account.
From past experience people in many parts of the country believe that once a plan is announced by a local authority everything is cut and dried and the views of those who will be affected count for naught. Certain difficulties arose in my area recently when doubts and fears turned out to be very much exaggerated but they were real doubts and fears expressed by the people affected. The White Paper, which is the basis of the Bill, says in paragraph 13:
It is essential that the wishes and needs of people in the area should be fully considered.
I am glad that is in the white Paper, but the best time to have the wishes and needs of those people taken into account is before a resolution is passed by a local authority making an area an improvement area.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ifor Davies): I am very much attracted by the new slogan suggested by

my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) "Let the people have a say first." We had a debate in Committee on the important issue of communication. It is important to realise what the Bill already provides. This Amendment will require the local authority to carry out a survey of the wishes and needs of residents within a potential general improvement area before deciding in the light of the survey and of the report required by Clause 32 whether it is fair to declare the area a general improvement area.
My. hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Alec Jones) referred to Clauses 32 and 35, but in Clause 71 there is a requirement for local authorities to inspect their districts from time to time to review housing conditions, which will include giving consideration to areas which may be suitable for improvement as a whole. It would seem unnecessary to go any further than this.

Mr. E. Rowlands: In Clause 71 there is no question of consulting people.

Mr. Davies: There is a clear understanding that the local authorities would inspect the districts and without a legal requirement there would be consultation. The report already required under Clause 32 will investigate ways in which the area needs to be improved both as regards houses and surrounding environment. It would also consider what new facilities need to be provided such as garages, parking spaces, play spaces, pedestrian routes, and so on.
As to residents' wishes, the only question which is relevant at this stage is whether they would in general wish to see their area improved or not. They will be given every opportunity to express their views as to the form which improvement work should take when the area has been declared. It is highly improbable that any local authority would propose to declare a general improvement area without first ensuring that the people in that area are generally in favour of the sort of improvement programme envisaged. The local authority will realise how much depends on it being able to enlist the co-operation of residents in the scheme.
By making this more detailed sort of survey a statutory requirement, an unnecessary element of rigidity would be


introduced into the procedure for declaring a general improvement area. Local authorities will recognise that some sort of survey is often necessary and in any case advice on the point will be given in the manual of guidance to be published when the Bill becomes law. I say to my hon. Friends and to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) that I fully appreciate the idea in promoting this Amendment, but it is felt by my right hon. Friend inadvisable to make this a legal requirement. Usually the local authority will need to take informal soundings about the needs and wishes of residents in several areas before deciding which to proceed with first because undoubtedly those needs and wishes and the willingness to co-operate are important considerations in choosing an area.
I readily give an assurance to my hon. Friends that the point will be brought home to local authorities when the circular is sent out under Part II of the Bill. I hope that this assurance will give my hon. Friends some satisfaction.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Murton: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 18, line 39, leave out
'declaring an area to be a general improvement area' and insert 'under subsection (1) of this section or under section 34 of this Act'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 163, in Clause 34, page 20, line 1, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Murton: There is a similarity between what the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) said and the purpose of this Amendment. This is tied up with the question of keeping the public informed. The object of the Amendment is to be sure that under Clause 34, which deals with changes in respect of a general improvement area, there should be no less opportunity for the public to be informed and able to represent their case, than when a general improvement area is declared.
Clause 34 refers to changes. There could be an extension of a general improvement area which could be a minor modification or could amount to a radical change. If it is right under subsection (1) that the general public should be in

formed by means of a local authority using the Press to publish its intentions, it is also right under Clause 34 that any extension, modification or change in an improvement area should likewise be brought to the notice of the general public.

Mr. Ifor Davies: The Amendment seeks to achieve that the procedure to be followed by the local authority in declaring, rescinding, diminishing or increasing a general improvement area should be the same. To a large extent we agree with the principle which the hon. Gentleman has advocated. The question is whether it is necessary, or indeed desirable, to make this a statutory condition. In the case of an addition to a general improvement area, the authority will want, above all, to secure local co-operation. It can be relied upon to follow the precedent established by the declaration of the general improvement area.
Different considerations arise on the rescinding or diminishing of a general improvement area. These will be exceptional cases and are properly subject to the Minister's approval. There is no single set procedure which would be appropriate. For example, the Minister might wish to hold a public inquiry, or, on the other hand, written representation from residents affected might be sufficient. The right procedure will, therefore, flow from the character of the case. There is a distinct difference.
In view of this difference my right hon. Friend cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: That is not a very satisfactory answer to the strong case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton). Under Clause 32(2), when a declaration is made that an area shall be a general improvement area certain information must be given to the public and certain steps can be taken by the public, as set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). If we may look forward without anticipating too much a future Amendment, there is to be a substantial addition to subsection (2) by way of informing the public of what is happening. What the local authority should do when it makes a declaration of a general improvement area is to be set out.
Clause 34 empowers a local authority to extend that area. It may be a very


substantial extension; it may be a very substantial increase in the area. There is not limit to the extension that can be made. It is bound to be just as important to those who are then taken into the area as it was to those who were originally declared to be in that area. Yet the procedure thereafter will be quite different. The procedure after an extension of a general improvement area is set out in Clause 34(3).
The Amendment seeks to ensure that the procedure will be the same for an extension of a general improvement area as it will be for the declaration of a general improvement area at the outset. We require that, because there is no limitation. It may be just a fringe change in the area, just a little movement of a boundary here and there. On the other hand, it may be doubling or trebling the area, or even making it ten times greater and thereby affecting a very large population.

Amendment negatived.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 19, line 5, leave out 'and' and insert:
(b) take such further steps as may appear to them best designed to secure that the resolution is brought to the attention of persons residing in the area or owning property therein and that those persons are informed of the name and address of the person to whom any enquiries and representations concerning any action to be taken in the exercise of the local authority's powers under this Part of this Act should be addressed; and

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss, also, the following Amendments: No. 47, in line 5, leave out 'and' and insert:
(b) take such steps as will in their opinion secure that persons who may be expected to desire an opportunity of making representations to the local authority with respect to the subject matter of the resolution are made aware that they are entitled to an opportunity of doing so;
(c) provide for the persons mentioned in the preceding paragraph an opportunity of making such representations;
(d) receive and consider such representations; and.
No. 48, in line 8, at end insert:
'and keep the Minister informed from time to time of the nature of representations made by persons having an interest in the subject matter of the resolution'.

I understand that the Opposition would like to have a Division on Amendment No. 47.

Mr. Graham Page: I am obliged Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Greenwood: I regret that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) should have prejudged the issue by saying that he intends to divide against us before he has heard my arguments.

Mr. Graham Page: The Minister knows the procedure of the House. We must claim that right at this stage. If he satisfies us by accepting our Amendment, we shall not need to divide.

Mr. Greenwood: After that typical exchange of courtesies, I want to thank the hon. Gentleman and also the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) for having directed our attention to this point in Committee, because our Amendment follows upon the discussions we had at that time. We are trying to ensure that a local authority, as soon as it declares an area to be a general improvement area, should, in addition to the newspaper publication which is at present provided for, take steps to ensure that residents and owners of property in the area concerned are aware of what has been done. The Amendment follows the general line of the Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Poole.
It is not necessary to insist that local authorities should consider any representations received or to prescribe a fixed period for the submission of representations. We formulated the Amendment in accordance with the concepts lying behind the general improvement area scheme. It can be assumed that the local authority will inevitably keep in close and constant touch with residents and owners of property within a general improvement area.
It is not necessary to prescribe that the local authority should do so. If the scheme is to be a success, it must keep in touch with those most closely concerned. It is also unnecessary to set any limit to the period during which representations can be made, because it must always be open to those in the area to give their views on what the council proposes to do.
The Amendment will, in effect, provide a complete link between the initial


declaration of the general improvement area and the duty of the local authority under Clause 35 to make available to residents and owners of property information about the action it is proposing to take from time to time to improve the living conditions in the area.
Giving to owners and residents the name of someone to whom inquiry may be directed, which is one of the points in our Amendment, will introduce a personal touch from the start which will be very necessary if co-operation is to be secured. We have gone rather further that we were pressed to do in Committee. The nomination of such a person and the giving of information to those in the area is a valuable concession which I think the House will welcome. The opportunity to make representations and the duty to publish information will be continuous throughout the period that the authority takes action under Part II; and they will form the basis of the collaboration between the council and the residents, which will be the key to successful general improvement area action.
In view of what I have said, I hope that the Opposition will be able to welcome our Amendment and will not press their very helpful Amendments.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am in some difficulty. I had said that we might have a Division only on Amendment No. 47. I do not, however, see at present—I am waiting for a little further advice—how we can divide on it if Amendment No. 46 is carried, so that if the Opposition want to register a vote they might have to vote on Amendment No. 46 itself.

Mr. Graham Page: Amendment No. 47 is additional to what is set out in Amendment No. 46, in that it lays down a procedure for receiving representations from the public which is not contained in Amendment No. 46, so that Amendment No. 47 could be supplementary to Amendment No. 46, although both contain a paragraph (b).

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would have to be in another form. The words:
leave out 'and' and insert
would have to be changed, because if we accept the first Amendment we have already left out "and". The difficulty probably arose because the two sides

tabled two Amendments towards the same point. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would leave it with me for the moment.

Mr. Murton: I am grateful to the Minister for the kind and pleasant things he said about the origin of the Government Amendment, and perhaps I may be rather mean if I quibble slightly over what he has said. It may well be that there is only a fine point of difference, but the general tenor of what the right hon. Gentleman said and the wording of Amendment No. 46 give the impression that a local authority would inform those persons who might be concerned about what was to be done, but would net necessarily invite those who might be affected to do much more than to make representations. Our Amendment, particularly paragraph (d) would make it incumbent on the local authority to receive and to consider such representations.
We must be careful. The whole object of the Bill and the Town and Country Planning Act is that there should be public participation and complete co-operation between the local authorities and the people who are concerned and will benefit by the provisions of the Bill.
If something could be done to the Government Amendment to make it clearer that, representations having been received, the local authority would have a duty to consider them, the point would be met, but at present I prefer our Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I would like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) said about the three Amendments. They are in the same spirit as the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands), which we recently discussed, namely, that we should obtain as much participation from the public in the declaration of general improvement areas as possible and that the public should be drawn into the matter, know exactly what is happening and be able to make representations for the protection of individual property rights or with respect to the objectives of the local authority.
The difference between the Amendments we are discussing and those we have already discussed is that here we are dealing with the position after the


declaration of the general improvement area has been made. At that stage the public will be able to find out fairly well what the local authority's intentions are and will therefore be able to formulate their representations rather more specifically.
If they are to put forward representations, as one would hope they would, a procedure for this should be provided in the Bill. Government Amendment No. 46 seems to be framed with a take-it-or-leave-it attitude—"Here is where you can get the information. Come and get it, and then we leave you to do what you think about it".
Our Amendment No. 47 goes into the procedure more specifically. We have adopted the procedure in the Town and Country Planning Act of this year, which was discussed very thoroughly in the passage of that Act, in relation to the formation of structure plans and local plans. It must be a procedure particularly appropriate to the declaration of a general improvement area.
It might be said that one does not need all this procedure, and all that will happen is that the local authority will improve the area, and who will complain about that? But that is very naïve, because to carry out its duties under the general improvement area declaration the local authority is given compulsory purchase powers and fairly wide powers to control the area, to acquire property in it and carry out work within it. The declaration may seriously affect the owners and occupiers of property within it, and they may want to make representations. If they are merely told, "Here is the name and address of the person to whom you can make representations", that is not very helpful. If there is an obligation on the local authority such as we set out in Amendment No. 47, the objects of public participation in this procedure will be achieved.

It is obvious from what you have said, Mr. Speaker, that if Amendment No. 46 is carried our Amendment No. 47 will fall. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will divide against No. 46, not because we do not like what is in it but because we do not think that it goes far enough and had hoped that Amendment No. 47 would be added to the Bill. I hope that if we divide against No. 46 to record what we feel about the contents of our own Amendment it will not be taken too hard against No. 46. This is one of those occasions in our procedure when we must perhaps record our vote against something which appeals to us but does not go far enough.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to help the House if I can. It would be possible for me to accept a manuscript Amendment to Amendment No. 47 to leave out the words
leave out 'and' and insert
and substitute "after the words last inserted", in which case it would be possible for the Opposition to vote for Government Amendment No. 46 and for their own Amendment No. 47.

Mr. Graham Page: I am extremely grateful, Mr. Speaker.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 19, line 5, after the words last inserted insert:
(b) take such steps as will in their opinion secure that persons who may be expected to desire an opportunity of making representations to the local authority with respect to the subject matter of the resolution are made aware that they are entitled to an opportunity of doing so;
(c) provide for the persons mentioned in the preceding paragraph an opportunity of making such representations;
(d) receive and consider such representations; and.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 156.

Division No. 295.]
AYES
[6.29 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Corfield, F. V.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crouch, David


Astor, John
Bryan, Paul
Crowder, F. P.


Awdry, Daniel
Bullus, Sir Eric
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Batsford, Brian
Burden, F. A.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Doughty, Charles


Bell, Ronald
Chataway, Christopher
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Clark, Henry
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Clegg, Walter
Errington, Sir Eric


Body, Richard
Cooke, Robert
Eyre, Reginald




Fortescue, Tim
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Foster, Sir John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gibson-Watt, David
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott, Nicholas


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lane, David
Sharples, Richard


Goodhart, Philip
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Goodhew, Victor
Longden, Gilbert
Silvester, Frederick


Grant, Anthony
Lubbock, Eric
Sinclair, Sir George


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gurden, Harold
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Speed, Keith


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stainton, Keith


Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Montgomery, Fergus
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Heseltine, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Higgins, Terence L.
Murton, Oscar
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hill, J. E. B.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Waddington, David


Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Holland, Philip
Peel, John
Walters, Dennis


Hunt, John
Percival, Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pounder, Rafton
Wiggin, A. W.


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Prior, J. M. L.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pym, Francis
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Jopling, Michael
Quennall, Miss J. M.
Worsley, Marcus


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David



Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Humphrey Atkins and


Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. Jasper More.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Royle, Anthony





NOES


Abse, Leo
Gregory, Arnold
Moonman, Eric


Anderson, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Archer, Peter
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hattersley, Roy
Murray, Albert


Beaney, Alan
Hazell, Bert
Newens, Stan


Bidwell, Sydney
Hilton, W. S.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip


Bishop, E. S.
Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, Albert E.


Booth, Albert
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Boston, Terence
Hynd, John
Orme, Stanley


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


Brooks, Edwin
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Paget, R. T.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cant, R. B.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Carmichael, Neil
Judd, Frank
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurence


Chapman, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Pentland, Norman


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Leadbitter, Ted
Price, William (Rugby)


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, John (Reading)
Rees, Merlyn


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Richard, Ivor


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Luard, Evan
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roebuck, Roy


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
McBride, Neil
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McCann, John
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dobson, Ray
MacColl, James
Sheldon, Robert


Driberg, Tom
MacDermot, Niall
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dunn, James A.
Macdonald, A. H.
Skeffington, Arthur


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire, Michael
Slater, Joseph


Edelman, Maurice
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Small, William


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Snow, Julian


Ellis, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Symonds, J. B.


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Taverne, Dick


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tinn, James


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fernyhough, E.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wallace, George


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth
Weitzman, David


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Gardner, Tony
Mendelson, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Whitlock, William







Wilkins, W. A.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. Walter Harrison.

Clause 33

MUTUAL EXCLUSION OF GENERAL IMPROVEMENT AREAS AND CLEARANCE AREAS

6.30 p.m.

Mr. E. Rowlands: I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 19, line 9, leave out subsection (1).
This is a follow-up Amendment to a point which I sought to make on Second Reading as to the distinction between general improvement areas and slum clearance order areas. I suggested then and I have since had no reason to change my mind, that the division which the Bill makes between these two sorts of areas is an arbitrary one.
The situation envisaged in the Clause is contrary to the actual position in most twilight areas or other areas in which there is likely to be improvement. Potential improvement areas are a mixture of properties which have to be demolished and properties which could be improved. They are not exclusively one or other; often both kinds of properties are intertwined and closely related. Houses in slum clearance areas could be set in the middle of a general improvement area.
I fail to see why there has to be one set of procedure relating to slum clearance orders and another relating to general improvement areas. I am also worried that it will lead to the spread of the feeling in many local authorities about some twilight areas. This feeling is that if they are entitled to knock down slums in slum clearance areas which are part of general improvement areas in a separate procedure they will not look on the land so cleared as an intrinsic part of the improvement area.
What often happens is that, in residential areas—twilight areas—around the centres of our cities, slum clearance orders clear away large numbers of houses, but that the land is not returned to residential areas. It becomes available and is snaffled for commercial warehousing, motor-car saleroom development, and so forth.
Where slum clearance occurs in a residential improvement area, it should be

treated as an essential, integral part of the residential improvement area—otherwise, I fear that there will be a gradual impinging of commercial warehousing instead of residential development in twilight areas. This would defeat the purpose of clearing these areas, which is to improve them. This is an arbitrary and silly distinction between general improvement areas and slum clearance areas.

Mr. Murton: I raised this matter in Committee on 11th March. I said then, and say again, that, just as the Association of Municipal Corporations is puzzled by this mutual exclusion, so am I. I was even more puzzled by the rather strange answer which I got from the Parliamentary-Secretary, who said that it was a matter of administrative tidiness. I cannot see why administrative tidiness should be the only precept.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) has said, a clearance area and a general improvement area are inter-linked in many cases not only in the towns which grew up during the industrial revolution but in even older towns. I live in an area of Poole which will become a general improvement area, but there has also been slum clearance in that area and there is more to come. I agree that this is a somewhat strange if not a foolish distinction, and to that extent I support the Amendment.

Mr. Ifor Davies: The effect of the Amendment would be to delete the subsection which provides that no land included in a slum clearance area or purchased as being land surrounded by or adjoining such an area under Part III of the Housing Act, 1957, may be included in a general improvement area, unless it has been cleared of buildings.
Area improvement is never an alternative to general slum clearance. A general improvement area will be an area with potential for improvement. The houses should be structurally sound and not yet at the end of their useful life. It should be an area with a good life in front of it after improvement.
A clearance area is declared where the local authority, upon consideration of an


official representation or other information in their possession, are satisfied that the houses in the area are unfit for human habitation or are dangerous or injurious to health and that the most satisfactory method of dealing with the conditions is demolition of all the buildings in it.
Entirely different actions are involved. One is concerned with securing the improvement of an area—and the other with securing clearance, and it is right that they should be kept apart. This has been referred to as administrative tidiness, but there is an essential difference between the two. However, once the buildings in a clearance area have been demolished, the land can be added to an adjoining general improvement area or, indeed, to a general improvement area which surrounds the clearance area to the extent that it may be required for the improvement of the amenities of the area itself. That appears in Clause 34(2).
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) may be concerned to bring about the simultaneous redevelopment and improvement of different parts of a large area. This is entirely compatible with the purpose of general improvement areas which we look on as quite small compact areas. With a general renewal strategy, the Minister expects different solutions for different areas but considers it to be quite wrong to link the two operations together. Residents and owners in the different areas should know clearly what is proposed, otherwise there will be no confidence in general improvement areas themselves.
For that reason, my right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 36

GENERAL POWERS EXERCISEABLE BY LOCAL AUTHORITY IN GENERAL IMPROVEMENT AREA

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 20, line 27, at end insert:
'acquire the freehold estate in the whole or a substantial part of the general improvement area, by agreement or, with the authority of the Minister, compulsorily, and let the area

on a long lease at a low rent to a housing society, a housing association or other competent organisation upon conditions as to development, improvement and maintenance of the area as shall be satisfactory to the local authority, including such provisions as may be desirable for the subletting of any land or buildings in the area to the local authority for public purposes; and pending the letting of the area on long lease as aforesaid, the local authority may, in respect of land within the general improvement area—'.
This Amendment deals with the powers of the local authority when it has declared a general improvement area. The Amendment would require the local authority to consider the acquisition of property within the general improvement area and then let it, perhaps on long lease, to other agencies, such as a housing association or other competent organisation, to develop.
We on this side have given our blessing to the principle of general improvement areas and believe that it is a system which can be made to work, but I fear that some local authorities may, by the use of the procedures of the declaration of a general improvement area, build something of an empire because it will be comparitively easy to use this form of procedure where previously they have used others, such as that of a clearance area and the compulsory purchase orders and so on which follow that.
I do not wish to see the general improvement area procedure create more and more development corporations within local authorities—that is to say, to turn local authorities more and more into development corporations. This new procedure of a general improvement area is a chance to hive off that type of work of the local authority to other agencies, in partnership, perhaps, with the local authority or under conditions imposed by it.
If a general improvement area were to be merely a tidying up, with the installation of a few pleasant amenities in the area, I would not be so worried. There would be no need for an Amendment like this. But Clause 36 gives local authorities a very much greater power than that—to carry out substantial development. If that is to be done, they should be obliged to consider whether it is wise for local authorities themselves to carry out such development or whether it would not be better for other agencies to do it under conditions imposed by the local


authorities so as to bring about a policy which the local authorities require.
If there were a provision in the Bill such as we have in the Amendment, it would make a local authority think twice about declaring an area to be a general improvement area and we should not have the result of wide areas being blanketed by a declaration that they should be contained in a general improvement area.
I hope that in exercising this procedure local authorities will look very carefully at the areas which are to be so declared and will bring into the procedure only specific areas of decaying property. If they were small residential areas, they would obviously be appropriate for development, say, by a housing society, supported by finance from the Housing Corporation and from building societies, or by a housing association supported by finance from the local authority, itself supported partially by grants from the Exchequer in this respect.
If the area were more comprehensive than a small residential area, one might consider a development corporation for the purpose, perhaps a partnership between a local authority and a developer. There might be development on those lines, perhaps as substantial as a new town development within the old town.
The purpose of the Amendment is to oblige the local authority to consider the advisability of carrying out the development in a general improvement area by agencies other than the local authority itself. This general improvement area procedure is a chance to open up a new field of development altogether, with perhaps new principles and new policies, using other agencies and not merely building up a large empire for each local authority.

Mr. Murton: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) on this Amendment. As he said, it gives a remarkable opportunity for development to take place in this type of area by housing associations or similar bodies.
My experience is that when housing associations are given an opportunity to develop on behalf of their members, they are normally granted virgin land upon which to do it. When an area is to be cleared, particularly in an industrial part

of the country, there could be a far-reaching and imaginative experiment if the land within the clearance areas were redeveloped in this way, under the aegis, perhaps, of a long lease granted by a local authority. In that way private enterprise in some form or another would be allowed to take part in replacing a derelict area. It would be much better for such housing to be done by a housing association, catering, let us say, for industrial workers who desired housing situated within those areas rather than on the outskirts of a conurbation.

Mr. MacColl: In so far as the Amendment extends the powers of the local authority, it is not necessary. The powers under Clause 36 are wide enough for the authority to do almost everything which the Amendment proposes.
What I find rather difficult to understand is the point of difference between myself and the hon. Members for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and Poole (Mr. Murton) about what we are trying to do. The difference appears to be more fundamental than I had thought. They appear to be thinking of a general improvement area as an area in which there would be a large demolition of property. They have concentrated on clearance powers. The hon. Member for Crosby spoke of the local authority wishing to turn the development into a development corporation and the hon. Member for Poole spoke of a wide area having to be cleared.
That is not at all what my right hon. Friend intends. His idea is that a general improvement area is mainly an area in which we are not displacing people and not demolishing property; we are improving existing property. As an ancillary to that we must have powers to demolish because it may be necessary to open up the area in order, as it were, to ventilate it. There must, therefore, be some demolition. Nor is it mainly a question of acquiring whole areas compulsorily. As the wording makes clear, the immediate power is to do these things voluntarily, although there is a proviso in line 34 whereby they
may be authorised by the Minister to acquire any land compulsorily".
The main purpose would not involve great displacement or the widespread acquisition of property, but where that was necessary, there are plenty of powers


in Clause 36 to do it. In addition, Clause 40(1) makes important changes in the relationship with housing associations. It enables local authorities to make contributions to other people—and these will include housing associations. Subsection (7) recognises housing association expenditure as expenditure for purposes of grant incurred by the local authority. Hon. Members opposite may rest assured that the powers exist, although the need to use them may be more controversial. I do not think that it calls for an Amendment.

Mr. R. W. Brown: Is there power for the Minister to assess whether these housing associations are bona fide associations? My hon. Friend has received complaints from me about the mushrooming of so-called housing associations which Conservative councillors are deliberately setting up in an attempt to step up rents.

Mr. MacColl: That goes a little beyond the immediate Amendment. We have to be careful about housing associations and to make certain that they are good and reputable. That is one of the points at which the Central Housing Advisory Committee, under Sir Karl Cohen, is looking to make certain that we are handling our housing associations with the greatest effectiveness.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am surprised that the Government do not accept the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary's argument was that there are powers in the Bill to enable local authorities to do what is expressed in the Amendment. But the importance of the Amendment is the emphasis it gives on local authorities handing over this work to housing associations and housing societies.
I very much regret the intervention of the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown). If carried further, it would give the impression that housing associations were organisations designed to put up rents. Those of us who have had much to do with

the housing association movement know of its already tremendous achievement in the very type of areas with which Clause 36 deals.

I was particularly anxious that the Amendment should be made, because we wanted local authorities when deciding to use their general powers to see the emphasis which the Clause would have put on the possibility of handing over the work to housing societies and housing associations. Those of us who have witnessed the work of these associations in areas such a Notting Hill and Liverpool know that these associations take with them a voluntary spirit and help to tackle many of the social problems connected with these areas.

The Minister obviously agrees, as does anyone connected with housing, that social problems in areas like these are often as bad as the housing, and the associations, even more than the most diligent local authorities, can introduce an atmosphere conducive to tackling the social as well as the housing problems. As housing often deteriorates as a result of social problems, this is an important spirit to capture for these areas.

The Amendment in no way contradicts the powers already provided in the Bill, but it would allow the housing association movement and organisations such as Shelter and voluntary housing societies to tell local authorities that they want to take on this task and that in Clause 36 Parliament had said that that was which it wanted to happen. I much regret that the Government have decided not to include the Amendment because there is no necessity for it. It would have done the Bill no harm, but it would have introduced a completely different atmosphere and been widely welcomed by the housing voluntary movements.

I hope that my hon. Friends will press the Amendment and I regret that the Government are opposed to it.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 148.

Division No. 296.]
AYES
[7.3 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Black, Sir Cyril


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Batsford, Brian
Body, Richard


Astor, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward


Awdry, Daniel
Bell, Ronald
Brinton, Sir Tatton




Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bullus, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip
Ridsdale, Julian


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Royle, Anthony


Chataway, Christopher
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clark, Henry
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clegg, Walter
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Scott, Nicholas


Cooke, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Sharples, Richard


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Crouch, David
Kimball, Marcus
Silvester, Frederick


Crowder, F. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Doughty, Charles
Lane, David
Speed, Keith


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stainton, Keith


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Eyre, Reginald
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Foster, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
Monro, Hector
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Waddington, David


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Grant, Anthony
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Walters, Dennis


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gurden, Harold
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian
Wiggin, A. W.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pounder, Rafton
Worsley, Marcus


Heseltine, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.



Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Francis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hill, J. E. B.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Jasper More and


Hirst, Geoffrey
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Moonman, Eric


Archer, Peter
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Beaney, Alan
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bishop, E. S.
Hazell, Bert
Moyle, Roland


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hilton, W. S.
Murray, Albert


Booth, Albert
Hooley, Frank
Newens, Stan


Brooks, Edwin
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hynd, John
Oram, Albert E.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Orbach, Maurice


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Orme, Stanley


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Chapman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Paget, R. T.


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Judd, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dalyell, Tam
Kelley, Richard
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kenyon, Clifford
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, John (Reading)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dobson, Ray
Lestor, Miss Joan
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunn, James A.
Luard, Evan
Rees, Merlyn


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Richard, Ivor


Edelman, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McCann, John
Roebuck, Roy


Ellis, John
MacColl, James
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


English, Michael
MacDermot, Niall
Rowlands, E.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, A. H.
Ryan, John


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McGuire, Michael
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Faulds, Andrew
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Sheldon, Robert


Fernyhough, E.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackintosh, John P.
Skeffington, Arthur


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert
Slater, Joseph


Foley, Maurice
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Small, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Snow, Julian


Forrester, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Symonds, J. B.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Tinn, James


Gardner, Tony
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Urwin, T. W.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gregory, Arnold
Marks, Kenneth
Wallace, George


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Weitzman, David


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wellbeloved, James







Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Whitlock, William
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Wilkins, W. A.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 20, line 40, leave out from beginning to 'to' in line 41 and insert:
'(3) It shall be the duty of a local authority'

Mr. Speaker: I have suggested that we take, at the same time, Amendment No. 54, in page 20, line 42, at end insert:
'within a general improvement area as a result of the carrying out of the purpose aforesaid'.

Mr. Rossi: Clause 36(3) puts a duty on local authorities to rehouse persons who may be displaced from residential accommodation as a result of the acquisition of their property by local authorities when those persons are unable to find alternative accommodation of their own. The object of the Amendment is to widen that obligation on local authorities so that they must rehouse not only where they acquire land, but where they have declared a general improvement area.
I should be the last person to try to throw an unreasonable burden on local authorities, particularly those which have a difficult situation, as will most of those affected by the Bill. But the obligation laid upon them under the Bill is not a general obligation to rehouse simply because a general improvement area has been declared. We want the obligation extended so that the local authority must rehouse people not only where it acquires land, but where it does anything at all in connection with its powers under a general improvement area declaration.

Mr. R. W. Brown: I oppose the Amendment because it is impractical. Over the past year, almost a break-down in housing has developed in my constituency. It is a very distressing situation. To ask a local authority to be responsible under a directive of this kind to house any persons whom the owners of property may declare as needing to be rehoused so that works may be done, would put an extreme burden on the local authority. They could not do it in my area, and I am sure that it would be an impossibility generally. My local authority cannot house people in urgent

need now; it could not even house someone from its own property, things are in such a disgraceful state.
There is also the problem of how one would stop people moving into an area likely to be declared a general improvement area and then, within two or three months, having to be rehoused by the local authority, thus jumping the queue over people who have been waiting for a long time.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's purpose in putting the Amendment down, but I regard it as quite impractical.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said that he would be the last person to put an intolerable burden on the local authorities, and then proceeded to do it. This would be a great burden. I wonder whether the local authority associations, which are always scolding my right hon. Friend for putting burdens on them, would welcome a mandatory direction of this kind.
The Clause as it stands represents what has been past practice, particularly under the planning Acts. It is important, where compulsory acquisition takes place, that the local authority should not be indifferent to what happens to the people displaced. But, as I said on the previous Amendment, demolition will not be a major part of general improvement works. There can be some displacement, I agree, as a result of control on the number of people in an area, conversions, and so on, but the main responsibility will not be to rehouse people. People will stay where they are.
Before making a general improvement area declaration, a responsible local authority would always ask itself, "Is this something which can be tackled? Shall we be able to find somewhere for the people affected by it?". It would be irresponsible if it did not do that. Quite often, I am sure, it would be encouraged to use the procedure which is available of saying that it would help in certain cases and would rehouse certain people.
The local authority has power to do that, but the argument here is not about


powers. As on the previous Amendment, it is about directing a local authority to do it. As my hon. Friend the Member far Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown) said, we ought not to put upon local authorities such a burdensome direction. It is something which one would expect sensible and responsible public bodies to do.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Murton: I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 21, line 4, at beginning insert:
A local authority may, in a general improvement area, carry out repairs and replacements on land owned by them and assist (whether by grants or loans or otherwise) in the carrying out of repairs and replacements on land not owned by them, notwithstanding that such repairs and replacements are neither incidental to some improvement nor needed for the purpose of making the other improvement fully effective:
Provided nevertheless that.

Mr. Speaker: It has been suggested to me that we should take, at the same time, the Government Amendment No. 56, in page 21, line 8, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 9.

Mr. Murton: The object of our Amendment is to enable a local authority to give some encouragement to owners and tenants in a general improvement area even though it might mean the giving of loans or grants or assistance in some other way in respect of land which the authority does not own.
I remind the House that, under Clause 39, it is not incumbent upon a local authority to pay a standard grant in a general improvement area. The Amendment would be an encouragement to those who lived in a general improvement area and who would like to carry out works which would help to improve the general atmosphere in the area, but for which at present no legislative provisions is made.
There is a possibility that a local authority, on land not belonging to it, might make a loan for the erection of a curtain or screen wall to form a close, the clearance of a small area of derelict land where there are the remnants of a building which will not be replaced, the removal of rubble, turfing and planting, the cobbling of a piece of land in a close belonging to an individual which would improve the general amenity, or the erection of boarding or fencing.
It is obvious from photographs of pilot schemes that not only houses for which grants are given, but fringe areas within the general improvement area are affected, where tenants or owners might be persuaded to help to improve the general atmosphere by themselves doing work. It would be a good thing if local authorities were empowered, under certain circumstances and within certain limits, to give grants or loans, or in some other way to assist those undertaking this laudable enterprise.

Mr. Ifor Davies: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House, for permitting Amendment No. 56 to be taken with Amendment No. 55. The blow of my resisting Amendment No. 55 will be softened, since Amendment No. 56 will meet many points on which the hon. Gentleman has expressed anxiety.
Amendment No. 55 would enable the local authority in a general improvement area to carry out repairs and replacements on land which it owns and also to assist in such other works on other people's land subject to the limitations provided in the Clause.
The power to improve a dwelling or the amenities of the area—for example, external painting or the repair of flank walls—is already within the general powers exercised by the local authority in a general improvement area provided in subsection (1) of the Clause. A local authority should not use the powers under Clause 36 to duplicate the powers of the provisions in Part I to do any improvement work or to make a grant towards the cost of any improvement work for which the standard or special grant could be paid under Part I.
My right hon. Friend appreciates that a grant under this Clause as it is drafted, would also be prohibited where assistance is specifically ruled out for the purposes of Part I. This is considered to be too restrictive, and that brings me to Amendment No. 56. It is recognised that one of the powers given to local authorities by Clause 36(1) for the improvement of a general improvement area is the power to
… assist (whether by grants or loans or otherwise) in the carrying out of any works on land not owned by them".
It is right, therefore, that a local authority should not use its powers under


Clause 36 to duplicate the provisions of Part I; that is, to make a grant towards the cost of any improvement work for which improvement, standard or special grant could be paid under Part I. It is now thought that it is unduly restrictive to go further and prohibit also the payment of grants under Clause 36 simply because assistance is specifically ruled out for the purposes of Part I.
One valuable way of improving the environment may be to give the exterior of a house a face-lift, perhaps by repairing a flank wall, and this is the kind of work which in individual cases could easily be caught by one or other of the restrictions referred to by the hon. Gentleman. The proposed deletion of the final words of subsection (5) will enable a local authority to help in these circumstances if they wish to do so in the interests of area improvement. Amendment No. 56, therefore, goes a long way towards meeting the objects of Amendment No. 55.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am most grateful to the Minister. He has expressed the spirit of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing his Amendment.

Mr. Murton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 56, in page 21, line 8, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 9.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 21, line 9, at end insert:—
(6) Section 56(2) to (4) of this Act shall apply to a dwelling within a general improvement area with the modification that the qualifying conditions shall include the condition that the dwelling is of the standard reasonably required by the local authority in respect of dwellings in that general improvement area.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 58, in page 22, line 37, leave out from first 'it' to end of line 38 and insert:
'if, when the works specified in the application have been carried out, although the dwelling will comply with the requirements of section 9(1) of this Act, the dwelling will not be of the standard reasonably required

by the local authority in respect of dwellings in that general improvement area'.

Mr. Rossi: Amendment No. 57 seeks to import into Clause 36 the provisions contained in Clause 56(2) to (4) inclusive. Clause 56 provides for the circumstances in which rents of statutory tenancies can be increased, and enables a landlord, where he wishes to increase rents but cannot do so because the property is below a certain standard, to ask the county court for leave to carry out works to the property, even though the tenant in occupation has refused to give permission for that work to be carried out. Clause 56(2) to (4) states the circumstances in which application can be made to the county court and the conditions subject to which the application must be made. That is concerned purely with where a landlord wishes to increase the rent.
The Amendment seeks to carry that right to go to the county court to compel works to be done where the landlord is concerned more to bring his house up to the standards of a general improvement area. Clause 36 deals with the standards of property, and the way in which they have to be brought up to certain criteria required by the local authority. Where the landlord is desirous of bringing his property up to those standards, we feel that he should be given the same rights to go to the court and ask for leave to do certain works, even if the tenant does not wish him to do so, where his desire is to improve his property. We think that it is right and logical that that provision should be made.
Amendment No. 58 concerns Clause 39, which provides that a local authority cannot be compelled to give a standard grant for properties in a general improvement area. The Amendment seeks to cut down the protection given by the Clause to the local authority by saying that it will not be able to refuse a standard grant if the result of that standard grant is to bring the property up to the required general standard of houses in the general improvement area. In other words, the standard grant can only be refused where, even with that money being spent on it, the house will still not come up to acceptable conditions as laid down by the general improvement declaration of the local authority.
I hope that both Amendments will find favour with the Government.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: Amendment No. 57 is directed to a situation where a tenant is not prepared to give his consent to improvements being made. In the desire to get better quality improvements, I do not think that it would be very helpful. It would mean that a landlord would have to go to court for authority to carry out further works in addition to the standards accepted as reasonable. In other words, not only would the landlord be putting in standard amenities. He would also want to carry out extensive improvements in the face of the tenant's opposition, even though that lower standard was adequate. This is not a prudent use of compulsion. Any desire to improve standards should be left as a matter for negotiation between the landlord and his tenant, and so try to get a better standard if both want it.
I could not advise the House to accept the second Amendment, either. It would be unrealistic to refuse to accept the situation where both might agree to bring a sound house up to minimum standards. If one can get agreement to that extent, I would think it unwise to add any extra compulsion.

Mr. Graham Page: That is a disappointing reply to an attempt to be constructive.
I deal with Amendment No. 58 first. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said, the words in Amendment No. 58 are an addition to Clause 39. We on this side are not happy about the removal of the compulsion on local authorities to make standard grants in general improvement areas. In Committee, we understood that the basic reason for this was that, outside general improvement areas, a local authority is compelled to give a standard grant in the case of a house which will be fit for habitation when the improvement has been made, but that, in the case of general improvement areas, the local authority will want to bring up the houses to a higher standard than just making them fit for habitation and will seek to set a standard for a general improvement area.
If that is the reason for Clause 39, we have tried to spell that out in the Amendment and say that the local authority shall still be required compulsorily to make standard grants unless, when the grant has been made and the work has

been carried out, the house will be below the standard which the local authority has set for that general improvement area.

Mr. R. W. Brown: I am a little worried about the standard. If the hon. Gentleman takes the standard of the G.L.C.'s property in my constituency, it is to have a bath in the kitchen which is covered over when it is not in use. Does the hon. Gentleman consider that that should attract a grant?

Mr. Page: We are embarking on a new procedure altogether when we talk about the general improvement area procedure. The principle which may have been adopted up to the present in accepting that a house will be fit for habitation after the improvements have been carried out may be below the standard applied in general improvement areas in the future.
The principle behind both Amendments is that there will be a standard of repair to which a local authority will strive in a general improvement area. If the owner is prepared, when installing the standard amenities, to bring the house up to the standard set by the local authority, there should be compulsion in the grant being made.
As for Amendment No. 57, if there is to be no compulsion about standard grants, an owner is put in a difficult position. He may want to co-operate with the local authority in bringing up the standard of properties in the general improvement area. He may say to the local authority that he wants to do all that he can to bring his properties up to this state and ask if the authority will give a standard grant. The local authority may say that under Clause 39 it is not obliged to and that it has not made up its mind, whereupon the owner may carry out the improvements himself. He may then be faced with a difficult tenant.
If he were getting the improvements in the normal way, Clause 56 would operate and he would have a right to get facilities from the tenant to carry out the necessary work. But he will have no rights if he is merely trying to bring his property up to the standard which the local authority will require in the general improvement area. Where he is trying to bring his property up to standard in a general improvement area, we have tried to give


him the same rights as he might have outside that area when he is getting a standard grant or an improvement grant.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 40

CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES TOWARDS EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER THIS PART OF THIS ACT

Mr. Ifor Davies: I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 23, line 24, leave out 'taking £100 for each of the' and insert 'multiplying £100 by the number of'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment, it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 60, to leave out '£100' and insert '£150';
Government Amendment No. 62, Amendment No. 63, in line 34, leave out '£100' and insert '£150'.

Amendment No. 61, in line 24, after '£100' insert 'or in the case of Greater London £200'.

Amendment No. 64, in line 34, after '£100' insert 'or £200'.

Mr. Ifor Davies: Amendments Nos. 59 and 62 will meet a point raised by the Greater London Council. Clause 40 enables the Minister to pay a contribution to a local authority towards expenditure incurred by it under Part II of the Bill in respect of environmental improvement. As drafted, the aggregate expenditure which may be approved for this purpose may not exceed the sum arrived at by taking £100 for each dwelling stated by the local authority to be in the area at the time that it is declared to be a general improvement area. The Government contribution is an annual sum equal to one-half of the annual loan charges referable to the approved expenditure and payable for 20 years.
The Greater London Council has pointed out that, in a general improvement area where large old houses are converted into flats, there could be appreciably more dwellings in the area when it has been improved than at the time that it was declared.
The Amendments would allow this sort of increase in the number of dwellings

to be taken into account. It means that in each case the contribution would be related either to the actual number of dwellings in the area at declaration, or the number which it appears to the Minister will be in the area when improved.
The local authority will decide on what basis to claim grant. It will then want to know before starting the work how much grant it will get, and subsection (1) of the Clause is framed accordingly. In any case, it would not be a practical proposition to leave the decision until all the conversions had been carried out. This, indeed, may take several years. Therefore, it is proposed that the Minister should decide what the increases are likely to be; that is, additions as a result of conversions less any houses which might be demolished. Information about the conversions and the unfitness of individual houses should appear in the report which the local authority will have before it when it declared the area a general improvement area and a copy of the report will be sent to the Minister.

Mr. Rossi: We are grateful to the Minister for meeting the representations of the G.L.C. I am certain that this will be of great help to local authorities throughout the country. I say "local authorities throughout the country" because, as the Clause stands, accepting the Minister's Amendment, it will be of universal application.
That brings me to Amendment No. 61 which seeks to make a special provision for the G.L.C., raising the figure from £100 to £200. I will not belabour that point because it has been foreshadowed by an earlier debate in which much emphasis was laid on the increased costs in the Greater London area in dealing with work of this kind.
I hope that the Minister, if he has power to make regulations increasing the figure from time to time and has a discretion, will follow the line that he indicated he would take in earlier discussions.

Mr. E. Rowlands: I am sure that the Amendments moved by my hon. Friend will be useful to local authorities, especially where there is much multi-occupation, where it is likely that, through conversions, there will be an increased number of dwellings.
Amendments Nos. 60 and 63, standing in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones), anticipte a different problem. They look towards the problem of environment suffered by many South Wales valleys and deep mining valleys throughout Britain. The general impression of local authorities and people desperately keen and involved in the attempt to improve the environment around the houses in our valleys is that £100 per house will not be sufficient.
The houses in the mining valleys and communities are not likely to be converted into multi-occupation. Therefore, decisions of local authorities to institute area improvement schemes are likely to result in a net loss in the number of dwellings. Our plea for an increase in the grant to £150 is based on knowledge of the difficult environment of many houses in mining valleys and by information and evidence that has been brought forward. Recently, a National Coal Board official, who is concerned with the large number of houses owned by the Board, said that for improvements in environment he thought £100 was meagre. Many hon. Members with South Wales constituencies share that view.
I should like to know what is included in the environmental grant of £100. To improve the area environment, it might be necessary to remove one or two houses in a street of terraced houses to make room for the improvement. Is the expense of demolition and compensation to people who would have to be moved included in the environmental grant of £100, or does it come from a separate source?
While appreciating that grants to clear derelict land in the immediate neighbourhood of many mining communities will be valuable, we feel that £100 a house spent by a local authority—often a poor local authority—will not be sufficient.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Fred Evans: I rise only to give the strongest possible support to the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands).
I should like to quote the kind of imaginative concept which certain local authorities in South Wales have embarked upon. One, embarked upon a long time before the Government envisaged a Bill of this kind, concerns a local authority

together with a committee of local people. They drew up a concept for recasting the total environment of a small Welsh valley, including two reasonably sized townships which were falling into decay and where the mining industry was dying. Indeed, it is now completely dead in one of those towns. The concept includes other forms of Government help, for which we are extremely grateful.
The housing problem is severe. My hon. Friend mentioned National Coal Board housing, which also raises a great problem. We feel that with the difficulty of hill sites in South Wales valleys and problems set up by mining subsidence, for the recasting of a total environment housing must be one of the key issues. Therefore, I strongly urge the Government to give due consideration to increasing the grant by £50.
Another local authority in my constituency envisages taking a very difficult hillside site and trying to recast the immediate housing environment of 300 houses. With rateable values and the products of rates in South Wales, the capital expenditure involved in this kind of exercise is tremendous. The imagination and the willingness to do the job is there. The willingness to create the necessary labour force, especially as we are now getting Government training centres on an increasing scale, will make this possible.
I have quoted only two instances, but there are a multitude of other instances, not only in South Wales but in all industrial areas, where this kind of approach will most certainly be made by imaginative officers in local government. They should not be held back. Realising the difficulty of our present economic circumstances, I still ask the Government to give consideration to my hon. Friend's Amendments.

Mr. R. W. Brown: I want to refer to Amendment No. 59. While I appreciate what my hon. Friend said he was trying to achieve, I should like to draw attention to the dangers in areas like my constituency where the local authorities are completely and utterly incompetent to handle their housing situation.
Some families with five, six and seven children are being forced to live for many years in two or three rooms. Only today I have had petitions from hospitals and


doctors asking me to help. I have been trying to get the local authorities to help in some cases for months, but they will not. Neither will the G.L.C. which has been so anxious to get things included in the Bill. The G.L.C. and the local authorities wilfully refuse to help. Even when families are in areas which ought to be designated by the G.L.C. they will not house them.
Consequently, if the remaining houses in the area which could be made into one-family units are to be encouraged to be converted into two-family units, it will mean that these families will not be helped because the council will not have any four, five or six-bedroom properties. The last chance of any progressive local authority buying up one of these big houses and using it for a particular family will be lost.
I urge my hon. Friend to bear in mind that somewhere in the Bill we ought to have the caveat that local authorities have a responsibility to take care of these large families who are unable, under any circumstances, to be taken care of by anyone else.

Mr. Alec Jones: I rise to speak in support of Amendments Nos. 60 and 62. The concept of the environmental grant is one with which we all agree. Paragraph 16 of the White Paper says:
Whole areas and streets cannot be brought up to proper standards unless something can be done for the environment, as opposed to the interiors, of the houses.
That is almost a noble concept, but the Bill does not live up to it, because it says that the grant-aided expenditure is to be limited to £100 per house. I doubt whether £100 will enable us to live up to the ideal expressed in the White Paper. I doubt very much whether it will enable us, certainly those in the older industrial areas, to do the job which the White Paper says needs to be done.
Whatever we can do for the environment of an area must depend partly on the existing conditions in that area. The more salubrious new towns and new areas may not need much environmental improvement, but the problems facing the older industrial areas, and particularly the local authorities there, are much more serious.
Environmental improvement is essential for my constituency, and my area of

Rhondda. This was pointed out to us at length in a fine report issued by the Civic Trust and it was referred to again by a team of consultants now advising the Rhondda Borough Council on the whole aspect of Rhondda's future. But pointing out the steps which need to be taken is not enough. If the job is to be done properly, it will be necessary to provide much more than the suggested £100.
My hon. Friend is not asking for a vast increase in the amount of grant. He is asking for a modest increase to £150 to allow for the greater needs and the more pressing problems of our older industrial area. I can think of many parts of my area which would benefit from the provisions envisaged in the White Paper, such as children's playing spaces, parking spaces, the planting of trees, and so on. There is no doubt that £100 will be of some help—it is better than nothing—but, in the end, it might be a case of spoiling the ship for a ha'p'rth of tar.
Our older industrial areas are in urgent need of environmental improvement. The suggested grant of £100 is not sufficient, and I should like to feel that my hon. Friend, having met the point raised by the G.L.C., will meet the point of the special needs of the older industrial areas of South Wales.

Mr. Ifor Davies: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) for his opening comments. I should like to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend about the responsibilities of local authorities in this matter. I hope that the G.L.C. will take note of what has been said, and will take advantage of the opportunities provided by the Amendment. I thought that my hon. Friend made a valid point when he talked about the responsibilities of the larger authorities.
My hon. Friends have questioned the adequacy of the proposed level of grant. This has been questioned many times, but experience with experimental schemes has shown that quite a lot can be done within the cost limits envisaged. Certainly, environmental improvement is one of the outstanding features of the Bill, and my right hon. Friend feels that the Deeplish scheme was carried out within these limits and provided for traffic management, some street works, and tree-planting. Moreover, the introduction of a completely new grant should in itself do a


great deal to encourage environmental work. My right hon. Friend is very satisfied with the indications so far that local authorities fully appreciate this point.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) that the matter he raised will qualify for the £50 grant. The kind of alteration to which he referred will be included in the environmental improvement. The grant of £100 is in any case not a limit on expenditure in a general improvement area, but only a limit on what will be grant-aided. There is nothing in the Bill to stop a local authority spending more on this if it wants to do so.
When we were discussing Clause 40, in Committee, I emphasised that Ministers would not hesitate to use their powers under subsection (5) if it became clear that a higher level of grant was called for. This is important. The payment of experimental grant will be made more flexible by the Amendment. It will enable the number of dwellings likely to be produced by the conversion of houses or other buildings as a result of the action of a local authority in a general improvement area to be taken into account in calculating the amount of contribution payable. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment meets some of the points which have been made in an effort to improve the Bill as first drafted.

Mr. Rossi: The Minister has not dealt with the point that I tried to make in Amendment No. 61. Can he say whether the Minister will be prepared to exercise the discretion given to him under subsection (5) to make regional variations where the costs are perhaps higher than in other parts of the country? The Minister has a general discretion under that subsection. Where he is satisfied that improvement costs more in one region than in another, will he be prepared to make the necessary Order?

Mr. E. Rowlands: In the areas we have described the cost yardstick for housing subsidies recognises regional differences, and those areas receive this addition. I think that there is a good case for including a similar provision in the Bill.

Mr. R. W. Brown: Mr. R. W. Brown rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. We have already had one intervention too many.

Mr. Ifor Davies: I appreciate the point raised by the hon. Member for Hornsey, and by my hon. Friend. I take note of the emphasis which has been laid on it, but I cannot in this debate say that it is probable that my right hon. Friend will accede to their request.

Mr. R. W. Brown: Do I understand that, in an area such as mine, where the local authority can be persuaded to improve a house for use as a family house, it will get the same grant as it would have got if it had gone ahead and converted that house into two units?

Mr. Ifor Davies: That is another point, which probably arises under the amenity issue, but we shall see what can be done.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 62, in page 23, line 26, after 'area', insert:
'or, if it appears to the Minister that there will be an increased number of dwellings in the area, by that increased number'.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]

Clause 43

SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO GREATER LONDON

8.0 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 25, line 24, after 'section', insert '19'.
Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 154 and 155.
These Amendments are designed to restore into general improvement areas the provisions of Section 19 of the 1964 Act for enforcing improvements where they are not being done. The provision already applies outside general improvement areas. My view was, and continues to be, that if one cannot get a sitting landlord to move, the best thing, which would take much less time, is to have the local authority acquire the property. This does not take away that power; it adds a power. We have been asked by the A.M.C. and the public health inspectors to do this. While, as the judges say, I


must remain doubting but not dissenting, we are going to put this in.

Mr. Graham Page: It might be thought that this was a minor Amendment if there were no comment from this side. This is an important change in what we understood to be Government policy when the Bill was drafted. I would not disagree with this proposal. I think local authorities require this power, and if they use it wisely it will be very useful. However, it is a change in policy and I merely stress its importance.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 46

CONVERSION OF CONTROLLED TENANCIES OF DWELLINGS PROVIDED WITH STANDARD AMENITIES AND IN GOOD REPAIR.

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 25, line 31, at end insert:
(2) A local authority may delegate to the rent officer the function of receiving applications for qualification certificates, of considering such certificates, of carrying out the procedure required with regard thereto by this Part of this Act, of making determinations thereon and of issuing or refusing to issue such certificates; and any certificate so issued or any such refusal of a certificate shall be treated for all purposes as a certificate or refusal (as the case may be) made by the local authority.
In the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, the Government introduced the idea of delegation of powers by local authorities. This Amendment would make use of that provision. Under Part III of the Bill local authorities have a considerable number of extra duties which they find somewhat unwelcome. They have to become referees between landlord and tenant in a series of disputes about matters which could lead to rent rises. Therefore, there must be a great deal of anxiety as a result, with the possibility of pressure on the local authority, and it is certainly an unwelcome task.
The Association of Municipal Corporations has given me its views on the duties being laid on it. It says:
The view put forward on behalf of the Association is that the machinery is a most complicated one and seeks to control the situation in far too great detail. The re

quirement of a qualification certificate will be burdensome to local authorities and the need for such a certificate is in any case questioned. Having established a system for settling rents through the medium of the rent officers and rent assessment committees, it would be far better to let this administrative procedure deal with the question of the ascertainment of fair rents.
The Association goes on to say that it has a suggestion
which would certainly mitigate the burden on local authorities, whereby local authorities need to be involved only where landlord and tenant do not agree on the satisfaction of the qualification conditions. The Association feels that, in the majority of cases where both landlord and tenant will be quite content with the proposition that the dwelling satisfied the qualifying conditions, there is really no need to trouble the local authority.
I understand that the Ministry will not accept this view, but thinks that it will create further difficulties. Nevertheless, this is the way in which the minds of local authorities are working.
Our suggestion is that the local authorities should be empowered to delegate to rent officers the duties which are placed on them in the Bill. This has considerable merits, in that rent officers are experienced in the work of deciding reasonable conditions under which a reasonable rent should be paid.
Against this, of course, it is argued that public health inspectors should decide on the conditions which are set out in Clause 46(1), which says that the dwelling should be
 . . provided with all the standard amenities for the exclusive use of its occupants, that it is in good repair, having regard to its age, character and locality and disregarding internal decorative repair, and that it is in all other respects fit for human habitation.
Of course, one can say that this is well within the province of a public health inspector, but it is unnecessary to bring in these officials on every occasion. This is clearly what the A.M.C. feels.
Remembering that the public health inspector is always available as an adviser on the side, why is it necessary, because he is the ultimate judge in this matter, to bring him in at the beginning? Surely it is more satisfactory to bring in someone who is reasonably qualified to do the job, but not a technical expert. Then, if the advice of a technical expert is necessary, he can be called upon. It seems much more sensible to employ the rent


officer for this purpose. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say that rent officers have enough duties already, but I am sure that he would agree that public health inspectors also have enough duties. If it comes to the possibility of employing or recruiting either further rent officers or more public health inspectors, I am certain that he must agree that the former is easier.
The principle of delegation is now established. Local authorities are most unwilling to accept the duties laid on them, except possibly in the way I suggest, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman can accept the Amendment, which is intended to be very helpful.

Mr. Maddan: I support the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). There is no question that the various provisions of the Bill, to say nothing of other Statutes which we enact with great regularity, are placing a heavier and heavier administrative burden on local authorities. Also, the Parliamentary Secretary would not dispute that local authorities are in a difficulty, both financially and in terms of resources and personnel, in meeting all the demands put upon them as a result of enactments. This flow of enactments shows no sign of abating.
We spent in Committee a most interesting morning or more discussing the duties of the rent officers, the number of rent officers in different regions, the number of cases with which they were dealing and so on. Although a number of no balls were bowled during those discussions—the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made that clear in his reply in Committee—the fact remains that a substantial number of rent officers have spare capacity, first because they may not be overloaded with cases—we must remember that many of them are employed on a part-time basis—and secondly, because a greater proportion of the time that they have available could be devoted to the work we have in mind.
By this and similar legislation we are heaping a burden of administration on local authorities. It is imperative, therefore, that local authorities have the maximum degree of flexibility to perform these tasks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead pointed out, it is probably easier to increase the number of

hours that rent officers can put in compared with, for example, public health inspectors. I trust that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will comment on this aspect of the problem.
Local authorities should be able to delegate, as the Amendment suggests, certain functions to their rent officers, even if they are not employees of the town hall or district council. That latter point does not detract from the validity of our case. The Amendment has merit because many of the functions which must be carried out under the Bill will affect the rent officer. The amount of going to and fro between rent officer and local authority will be substantial. Paper multiplies paper and memoranda beget memoranda. At least if this happens within the same office, the bureaucracy will be limited.
This aspect was discussed in Committee when the Government were not particularly sympathetic to our view, although I was not convinced by the reasons they gave for resisting the suggestion which my hon. Friends made to avoid this to-ing and fro-ing. We suggested that there should be one source dealing with more than one aspect of the procedure under the Bill.
8.15 p.m.
As drafted, the Bill lays different duties on local authorities compared with the duties being laid on the rent officer. However, a great deal will depend on "mugging up" the cases that come forward. That work must be done, whether it is the duty of the local authority or the rent officer. As drafted, the Bill insists that the "mugging up" be done by both. We might avoid duplication and at the same time lead to better decisions being made if only one source need attend to these matters.
The Amendment also has merit because of the use of the word "may" when we say that a local authority may delegate responsibility for this work. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not argue that "may" means "shall". We are not insisting that anything must be done by rent officers or that local authorities must delegate responsibility. Nor are we asking the Minister to judge whether or not it is appropriate for the work to be delegated because, from the fastnesses of Whitehall,


that would be a difficult judgment to make.
Local authorities should be permitted to delegate responsibility if they consider that step to be prudent. They know if their rent officers have spare time. They also know the regard in which a rent officer is held in his relationships locally and between himself and the local authority. If this proposal is resisted, the Government will be saying that the judgment of local authorities in what are essentially local matters is wanting.
Nor can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary argue that it is inappropriate for the rent officer to carry out these functions, because in practical terms it is the sort of work that he is already doing. In any event, he can always seek the advice of an expert. For the flexible deployment of local administrative manpower, to avoid duplication, to get the right decisions and to let local authorities decide the best way of handling these issues, as well as to give them scope for decision-making, the Amendment should be accepted.

Mr. MacColl: I assure the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) that I do not rest my case on the staffing problems of rent officers or local authority officials. As the hon. Member said, these can be adjusted. I base my argument entirely on questions of appropriate function.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) is nothing if not a very honest and straightforward man. He began to read the list of jobs which had to be done before a qualification certificate could be issued, but then he stopped in his tracks and said that in fact these are all things that a public health inspector does every day—they are bread-and-butter jobs which he has to do. It is important to note that at the moment certificates of disrepair under the Rent Acts are and have been for many years issued by the local authority. Local authorities are quite used to that. The picture of the public health inspector being embarrassed by getting involved in an argument between landlord and tenant does not touch what I have seen of the good work which public health inspectors do. They have to be called in to decide who should do repairs and so on. Three-quarters of their work is of that kind.
Two things are required. First, someone has to say that a place is up to the standard of improvement necessary, and secondly someone has to say that it is in good repair. The people who issue a grant, assess the proposals for improvement and have a quick look to see which are the houses which can be improved—whether there is likely to be hidden rot or something of that kind—are local authority officials. The people responsible in law for inspecting houses in disrepair and serving orders are local authority officials. So the basic functions are local authority functions, not rent officer functions.

Mr. Allason: I grant that public health inspectors are experts, but the hon. Gentleman is changing inspection into function.

Mr. MacColl: The local authority has a function in which the experts play their part. It is for the local authority to organise the work in such a way that it is all part of the local authority job. The job of the rent officer is different. I have no evidence that there is any very strong resistance to this among the local authority associations. It is true that the A.M.C. suggested that the way to reduce this burden would be to have them coming in only in the event of a dispute between two authorities. The difficulty about that is that it is so easy for it to lead to abuse and to complaints later that there has been a misunderstanding. One of the difficulties in landlord and tenant relations is that the tenant, and in some cases the landlord, may say, "I did not understand what was involved and what the position is." It is far better not to have contracting out. It is better to have these extremely experienced local government officials who know the answers and know very much what is involved to make certain about standards.
The qualification certificate and ascertainment of a fair rent are different things. One is purely a factual question which involves looking at a building and deciding about its state. The other is a valuation problem on the state of repair for which to fix a fair rent. That essentially is a job for the rent officer, with the right of appeal to the rent assessment committee. These are two different functions. It is a right division to have the qualification certificate and later the application for registration.
The hon. Member asked why we should not have delegation. My objection to that is that the rent officer is not an employee of the local authority and under its direction. He is an independent official. To have a situation in which for certain purposes he would be performing delegated functions for the local authority would be altogether wrong in principle. He is an independent official making assessments entirely on his own responsibility.

Mr. Maddan: Is there a difference between the local authority delegating that power to a rent officer and delegating power to an engineer drawing up a sewerage scheme? I cannot see the difference.

Mr. MacColl: The difference is that the consulting engineer who prepares the sewerage scheme is a professional consultant of the local authority. He might go into the witness box at an inquiry to give evidence on behalf of the local authority. The analogy with what the hon. Member suggests is that if a local authority had power to instruct my right hon. Friend's engineering inspectors they could say, "The nice Mr. Buggins would be able to help us in getting a good scheme", and if Mr. Buggins sat on the inquiry as an inspector the Council on Tribunals would be humming with alarm. Because the rent officer should be removed from the battle between the landlord and tenant and the argument about whether a qualification certificate is good or bad, it is important to keep him away. To have this sort of delegation would amount to an incompatible relationship. What we have here is seen to be good natural justice which gives each official in his own field the job appropriate to his skill.

Mr. Graham Page: The Joint Parliamentary-Secretary is a very efficient debater, but I have never known him split so many hairs in a debate. It is splitting hairs to say that there is a distinction between the functions of saying whether a property is improved and in good repair and valuing the rent for that property.
We are talking about the movement of property from controlled to regulated tenancies. Before a dwellinghouse with all the standard amenities, in good repair and fit for human habitation, can be the subject of a fair rent there must be a

certificate on a decision by the rent officer. As the Bill stands these two lengthy procedures have to be gone through. First, a certificate has to be obtained from the local authority merely to say that the improvements have been made and that the house is fit for human habitation. Then the whole thing is duplicated by reference to the rent officer to fix the rent. Clause 48 sets out the elaborate procedure to be followed to get a certificate—the application is sent to the tenant, the local authority hears the representations, and then it must consider issuing the certificate. All this can be done parallel with the fixing of the rent by the rent officer. It is unnecessary for the two processes to take place consecutively. They could take place concurrently.
8.30 p.m.
This is wholly a question of settling rents. As a preliminary to settling the rent, the rent officer would have to look at the premises. He must always look at premises before he can assess the rent of the premises. Are we to say that the rent officer, when he looks at the premises, cannot tell whether there is a bath there, whether there is water supply, whether there is a wash handbasin, whether there is a sink, whether there is a water closet, and cannot tell whether the premises are in good repair and fit for human habitation?
That is what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying. He is saying that the function of fact finding, of discovering whether the property is in good repair, and the function of valuing the property for the purpose of determining the rent are separate. That is why I say he is splitting hairs and trying to divide the function of settling the rent.
That is what the whole of this Part of the Bill is after. Local authorities do not want this duplication, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) said. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary brushed that aside by saying that the A.M.C. has said that it thinks this is not a good idea but does not press for an Amendment. I think that the Association's words were firm and definite, namely, that it does not like the idea of local authorities, and particularly public health inspectors, who are already very overworked, having this extra burden


placed on them. There will be unnecessary delay and expense to the ratepayer arising from the necessity to employ more local authority officials, and there will be delay and expense to the property owner.
One would think that somebody had been set the task of thinking out the most difficult way of setting out a procedure to move from controlled to regulated property, of finding the best way to spend

the most money, of wasting the most time, and of finding jobs for idle hands when there are not any idle hands there. The Amendment would be an escape for local authorities from the mass, the maze, and the mess of the procedure as it stands in the Bill.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 140.

Division No. 297.]
AYES
[8.32 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Percival, Ian


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Astor, John
Gurden, Harold
Prior, J. M. L.


Awdry, Daniel
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pym, Francis


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Heseltine, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Batsford, Brian
Higgins, Terence L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hill, J. E. B.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bell, Ronald
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Ridsdale, Julian


Black, Sir Cyril
Holland, Philip
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Body, Richard
Hordern, Peter
Russell, Sir Ronald


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hunt, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott, Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Sharples, Richard


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Burden, F. A.
Jopling, Michael
Silvester, Frederick


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sinclair, Sir George


Carlisle, Mark
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Chataway, Christopher
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Clark, Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stainton, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Lane, David
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crowder, F. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lubbock, Eric
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Waddington, David


Doughty, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Walters, Dennis


Eyre, Reginald
More, Jasper
Wiggin, A. W.


Fortescue, Tim
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhart, Philip
Murton, Oscar



Goodhew, Victor
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, Anthony
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Archer, Peter
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dobson, Ray
Hattersley, Roy


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunn, James A.
Hazell, Bert


Beaney, Alan
Dunnett, Jack
Hilton, W. S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Edelman, Maurice
Hooley, Frank


Bishop, E. S.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ellis, John
Hunter, Adam


Booth, Albert
English, Michael
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Brooks, Edwin
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fernyhough, E.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Carmichael, Neil
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Chapman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Coleman, Donald
Foley, Maurice
Judd, Frank


Concannon, J. D.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kelley, Richard


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Forrester, John
Kenyon, Clifford


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Crawshaw, Richard
Gardner, Tony
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Dalyell, Tam
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lawson, George


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Gregory, Arnold
Leadbitter, Ted


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lee, John (Reading)




Lestor, Miss Joan
Murray, Albert
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Luard, Evan
Newens, Stan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Skeffington, Arthur


McBride, Neil
Oram, Albert E.
Slater, Joseph


McCann, John
Orbach, Maurice
Small, William


MacColl, James
Orme, Stanley
Symonds, J. B.


MacDermot, Niall
Oswald, Thomas
Tinn, James


Macdonald, A. H.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Urwin, T. W.


McGuire, Michael
Paget, R. T.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Palmer, Arthur
Wallace, George


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Weitzman, David


Maclennan, Robert
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wellbeloved, James


McNamara, J. Kevin
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Pentland, Norman
Whitaker, Ben


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Whitlock, William


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Marks, Kenneth
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rees, Merlyn
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Roebuck, Roy
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Moonman, Eric
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rowlands, E.



Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ryan, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Mr. Charles Grey.

Clause 47

APPLICATION FOR QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 26, line 42, at end insert:
(4) Before considering an application for a qualification certificate a local authority shall send a copy of the application to the person named in the application as the tenant.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, we are also discussing Government Amendments Nos. 69 and 70.

Mr. MacColl: These Amendments are solely concerned with splitting up a Clause which hon. Members opposite found difficult to understand in its original form. Without prejudice to its having been fairly clear, we have tried to make it simpler by cleaning it up.

Mr. Allason: I cannot let that remark pass. It was extremely offensive. If it was meant to be humorous, it was ill-placed. In Committee, I pointed out that this was an utterly incomprehensible Clause, typical of the legislation that we get from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government under the present Government—legislation worthy almost of the infamous Land Commission Act. I pointed out that subsections (1) and (2) dealt with entirely different aspects. I am glad to see that the Minister has now met my criticism by doing precisely what I asked. However, it is extremely offensive of him to try to be sarcastic, when the Opposition have helped to

make the Bill much more intelligible to the general public.
I am not clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether I am entitled to discuss the Amendment to Amendment No. 69.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has not been selected, but the subject matter is perfectly in order in connection with No. 70, so hon. Members can discuss it.

Mr. Allason: I am grateful. Here again, this would be a distinct improvement since it relates to the matter of timing. The new subsection (2) says that where a local authority is satisfied about certain matters it may do certain things. We do not want it to be just a matter of "where" it is able to do such things. We want it to be immediate, so that the moment it is satisfied it will be able to get on with the job. This would give a far better sense of urgency to the need to get on with a very complicated process.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48

CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION AND ISSUE OF QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE

Motion made, and Question.
That Clause 48 be divided into two Clauses, one consisting of subsections (1) and (2) and the other of subsections (3) to (7)—[Mr. MacColl]—
put and agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 69, in page 27, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'a' in line 5 and insert:
'Where an application for a qualification certificate is made under section 47(1) of


this Act the local authority shall, before considering it, serve on the person named in the application as the tenant'.

No. 70, in line 13, leave out from 'Where' to 'the' in line 15.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Clause 50

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REFUSING CERTIFICATE

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 71, in page 28, line 17, leave out 'him' and insert 'the applicant'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient to discuss Government Amendments No. 72 and No. 73 at the same time.

Mr. Skeffington: Amendment No. 71 illustrates the caution with which one needs to examine every Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). In Committee, he said, "Be a devil. All my Amendment does is to leave out ten words". Forgetting my native caution for once, I could not resist his appeal, although I am glad to say that, in accepting it, I said that it might be necessary to introduce some other form of words on Report to make the position clear. That is what happened. By accepting the hon. Gentleman's Amendment in Committee, we were left with the pronoun "him", unrelated to anything. Amendment No. 71 therefore makes sense of the provision.
Amendments No. 72 and No. 73 also go, I hope, some way to dealing with a more substantial point mentioned in Committee. Some hon. Members suggested that the period during which the landlord or tenant could appeal against the decision of the local authority should be extended from 28 to 42 days. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was sympathetic but said that he thought that it would be better to have a flexible rather than a rigid approach. These two Amendments allow such longer periods as the county court may decide. Indeed, it may be longer than what was proposed by the Opposition Amendment in Committee and is likely to be longer than what was proposed in the Bill as originally drafted.
I know that the Opposition were very much concerned that the landlord might suffer as a result of a local authority acting incorrectly in the first place, and that was the main purpose of their Amendment. Now there is this more sensible approach but there is the difficulty that we may run up against the principle, which was considered very important by my colleague—that we do not want to impinge on or telescope the phasing scheme.
In any case, the landlord cannot apply for registration of a fair rent until 1971 or 1972 under Clause 52, so if the local authority does not agree to give a certificate and the landlord appeals, the matter can be resolved before 1971 or 1972 as the case may be.
These are desirable Amendments.

Mr. Graham Page: It appears that both the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries are not their usual gracious selves tonight. One accuses us of not understanding a Clause which was badly drafted in the first place and about which they have accepted our drafting advice. The other accuses me of proposing Amendments which leave him in difficulty over grammar. But it is the Government's job to accept an Amendment in principle and tidy up the grammar afterwards.

Mr. Skeffington: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in Committee, I was prepared to accept his Amendment in principle but then he said, "Be a devil and accept it as it is." I fell from grace and accepted it as it stood.

Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman had not accepted it in that way we would be debating the matter tonight, but now we are only discussing "him", a small word in the Clause which does not need to take up our time.
The hon. Gentleman was ungracious in not acknowledging that it was our proposal that Clause 51 be amended in the form in which he has brought forward these Amendments. The extension of the time in this way, or giving the courts power to extend the time, will, I am sure, make the procedure much more acceptable. I will be gracious and say that we are grateful to him for bringing forward Amendments that we proposed in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 51

APPEAL IN CERTAIN CASES AGAINST ISSUE OR REFUSAL OF QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE

Amendments made: No. 72, page 28, line 20, after 'refusal', insert:
'or such longer period as the county court may allow'.

No. 73, page 28, line 26, at end insert:
'or such longer period as the county court may allow'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 74, in page 28, line 40, leave out 'and' and insert:
(4) On any appeal under this section the court.
The purpose of the Amendment is to divide subsection (3) into two parts, one dealing with appeals on the issue of the state of the dwelling at the time of the hearing as well as at the time of the issue of the certificate and the other dealing with the entirely separate but important matter of costs.
We complained about this drafting in Committee. I regret that the Government have not taken our advice and I hope that they will take it now. It is ridiculous that two such entirely separate matters should be included not only in the same subsection but in the same paragraph, with no full stops. I am not a lawyer, but let us not forget that those who are not lawyers are as much concerned with costs as are lawyers. The provisions about costs should be in a separate subsection.

Mr. Maddan: We do not want to tempt the Parliamentary Secretary to be a devil again, because he did not enjoy the previous experience. On this occasion we are tempting him to be a saint.

Mr. Skeffington: It is always difficult to resist these appeals. The question is, which is the clearest way of drafting the subsection? As a result of discussion in Committee, we took further advice on the matter. I tested the subsection on a Gallup Poll of my own and discovered that it made little difference whether the Amendment was incorporated. The consensus of opinion was that it is easier as the Bill is at present drafted.
I concede that there are two ways in which it could be drafted but, although

I should like to be helpful, I see no reason why we should accept the Amendment. Had my tests led overwhelmingly to support of the view put by the Opposition, I should have recommended the Amendment, but that did not happen. My advice, without doctrinal or any other policy reasons, is that the Amendment should not be accepted and that, as drafted the subsection is clearer than it would be if it were split into two.

Mr. Graham Page: None of us would go to the gallows on this Amendment, but it seems sense to divide this provision into two subsections, one dealing with matters relating to the condition of the property which have to be taken into account by the courts and the other dealing with the situation, when the court has decided whether a certificate should be granted, when the order is made as to costs. It is illogical to mix these two provisions and we should press the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Skeffington: I hope that we shall not divide the House on a point on which Division is not necessary. I have taken the advice of the parliamentary draftsman who, unlike the situation on the previous Amendment, see no snags in this Amendment. We must be careful about what we put into the Bill, but if the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) will allow me a little more time, I will arrange to make the very simple alteration in another place. For the reasons I have given, I should like a little further time. There is some evidence which goes against the Amendment. However, it is purely a question of drafting and in view of that I hope that we need not proceed to a Division.

Mr. Allason: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his gracious words. I am sorry that he had to wait to hear my persuasive speech before he could think of consulting the Parliamentary draftsman. The Amendment has been published for some time and it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman has to go to the lengths of waiting until the Bill gets to another place before accepting this simple Amendment.
However, on the understanding that it is to be made in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 75, in page 29, line 3, at end insert:
'or on such earlier date as to the court shall seem just'.
The Amendment deals with the situation when an appellant appeals that a qualification certificate ought to have been issued. This arises in subsection (1). Under subsection (4), if an appeal succeeds, the court may order that the qualification certificate shall be issued although refused by the local authority.
There is a curious piece of timing. Subsection (4) says that the certificate shall be deemed to have been issued on the date of the order. If there is a fiction about that, it is presumably possible to back date it to any reasonable time. We suggest that the court should have discretion to back date the certificate even further than the date of the order.
There are two reasons why a court may conclude that the certificate should be granted although the local authority has refused it. The local authority may have been unreasonable. It may have said that the premises did not meet the qualifications. If the authority is unreasonable, the court may so decide. Presumably, it would have been an honest mistake by the authority and there would be no suggestion of any need to back date the certificate.
But the other reason is that the tenant may have deliberately misled the authority and deliberately delayed the process of introducing the rent decontrol of his house. Should he then have the benefit of this period, which may be a long period, before the case goes to court so that the whole of that period is lost to the landlord? We suggest, therefore, that where there has been action of that kind the court should have power to back-date.
9.0 p.m.
The argument will then run that that will not be much good to the landlord because, even though the court may back-date the certificate, that does not automatically increase the rent. The certificate has to go to the rent officer, who then fixes the fair rent, and the fair rent can run only from the date when the rent officer fixes it.
That is so in the Bill as drafted. Is it fair? Obviously, the first rent cannot be increased because it can start only

when it is fixed by the rent officer, but we suggested in Committee that the period of delay could be changed in accordance with the order of the court. If the court determines, in effect, that there have been two months wasted introducing decontrol, during the periods of either two or four years when the rent gradually increases, there could be a reduction from 12 months to 10 months so that the second and third steps come in that much earlier. That would benefit the landlord. I admit that that is not in the Amendment—we must get this one through first—but it would be a way of compensating a landlord who had been unfairly treated because of a tenant's deliberate delay.
The second objection which may be raised is that that would be unfair on the tenant because it would put him to unexpected expense. He would not have covenanted to pay an increased rent, but the court says that he must and back-dates it. But it will be back-dated by the second increase coming in 10 months instead of 12 months, and that cannot be said to be a terrible hardship on the tenant, bearing in mind also that he is moving from a controlled rent to a fair rent on premises in good repair.
Therefore, neither of the arguments which the Parliamentary Secretary will use against me are valid. I hope that he will accept the Amendment and be prepared to accept the consequential Amendments which can come at a later stage.

Mr. Maddan: Among controlled tenants—a large section of the population, perhaps even including Members of Parliament—there is always a proportion of "sea lawyers". The procedure laid down in the Bill both for securing improvements to old houses now not up to standard and for adjusting the rent is extremely long-winded. Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary explained why that is, saying that it is deliberately so for reasons which seem good and sufficient to him.
We have to provide some balancing consideration to warn the frivolous litigant that he may get a small advantage from delaying, but he will not get an advantage through phase 2, phase 3 and thereafter. This may discourage him from frivolous delay and litigation causing his landlord to appeal.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am not a lawyer, sea or any other type. If there is frivolity in a case brought by a tenant, is not he liable to pay the whole costs under subsection (3), which says that the court will make no order unless it appears, having regard to the conduct of the parties, that it would be equitable to do so. In the circumstances outlined by the hon. Gentleman where a tenant has no reason for bringing the action, he stands a chance not only of having his rent increased but of paying a substantial amount in costs.

Mr. Maddan: The subsection deals with the landlord and the local authority, and I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman says is wholly true. In any case, it must be right for us to do what we can to weight the scales against the possibility of a tenant unreasonably delaying the landlord in securing what is due, at least in the second and third phases of the procedure.

Mr. Skeffington: We have tried all the way through to keep a fair balance between landlords and tenants. For example, in Amendments Nos. 72 and 73, we have given such extra period to the landlord or the tenant, as the court may think fit, in addition to the 28 days. This has to be taken into account in considering this matter.
My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that if we accepted a more flexible approach he would consider the need for any other compensatory flexibility in other Clauses. We have looked very carefully at this, but so far the case does not seem to be a strong one. Indeed, there are some difficulties, and unfairness might arise, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has pointed out.
Under Clause 51(4), the certificate is deemed to be issued on the date of the court's order. The Opposition are seeking by the Amendment to say that the certificate may be deemed to have been issued at some earlier date. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) pointed out further ways by which desirable objectives could be secured. I think I followed them, but I am not altogether sure. I cannot see the technical consequences of what he is proposing, nor do I see its relevance.
A tenant cannot bring an appeal under subsection (4) to delay paying the higher rent for a longer period, because he can apply only where a qualification certificate has been issued. Clause 51(4) would not apply. His appeal against the issue of a certificate would not stop the landlord from applying to the rent officer for the registration of the rent, subject to the postponement provisions in Clause 52. I do not see the relevance of the Amendment.
A landlord can appeal only in an already qualified case, and no application for registration of a fair rent can be made either before the qualification certificate has been issued or before the appropriate date under Clause 52, under which the conversion in the rent regulation is postponed. At whatever date the certificate is deemed to be issued, it will not alter the date when the application for registration can first be made.
I must also draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, under Section 22(3) of last year's Rent Act, a notice of increase may not take effect earlier than the date on which the rent was registered nor earlier than four weeks before service of the notice. In other words, in all these cases the hon. Gentleman's fears are not realised.
There is the additional point which I made in moving Amendments Nos. 72 and 73. Even if the local authority issues a certificate in the first place instead of only after an appeal by the landlord, the landlord cannot apply for the registration of a fair rent until 1971 or 1972. Again, therefore, I cannot see how he will be disadvantaged.
I do not desire to be unfair to landlords, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has fully grasped the effect of Clause 51(4) in the circumstances which he mentions.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 52

POSTPONEMENT IN CERTAIN CASES OF EFFECT OF QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 77, in page 29, line 11, leave out from 'Act' to first 'the' in line 13.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, it will be convenient to discuss Amendment


No. 78, in line 15, leave out from 'until' to end of line 34 and insert 'the expiration of six months from the commencement of this Act', and Amendment No. 169, to leave out lines 19 to 28 and insert 'while there is a certificate under section (Restriction on Powers of Court under section 56) in effect and currently valid that the means of the tenant are within the limits for rate relief the date applicable to the dwelling is 1st July, 1970'.

Mr. Allason: Amendment No. 77 paves the way for Amendment No. 78 and leaving out the three dates on which there will be delays in cases where the property is already in a proper state of repair at the passing of the Act. These are the cases where there is to be the longest delay before we move from control to regulated fair rents. There are three different periods of delay laid down corresponding to different rateable values.
The Government have never adequately justified these periods of delay except to say, first, that they are extremely magnanimous in allowing any sort of rent increase where the property is already in a good state of repair and, second, that they must have these periods of delay because the rent officers will be so busy.
They do not seem to know how busy they will be. They do not know how fast improvements cases will come forward. I suspect that they will come forward fairly slowly because, after the Bill becomes law, there will be a considerable amount of to-ing and fro-ing before getting decisions on whether grants will be made, and it may be that the rent officers will not be all that busy in the early stages. Nevertheless, we have these very long periods of delay with the effect of putting off any rise in rents until as late as January, 1972. I draw attention to the fact that in the earlier stages it is January, 1971, which has an electoral bearing. That is probably the reason, very near the statutory end of this Parliament, that these dates are put in.
9.15 p.m.
Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 propose that there should be a period of delay of only six months applicable to all categories. After that there will still be the gradual increase of rent under Schedule 3. But let us get started on the process

of encouraging landlords who have improved their property in the past but find they still only receive controlled rents—rents twice the 1939 value, rents fixed in 1957 and not increased in the 12 years since. These are the people that the Minister deliberately intends to put off until after the end of this Parliament before there should be any significant increase in rent.
If it is argued that the rent officers will be too busy to cope with our increased speed here, they will have to behave as they did under the Rent Act and take cases in their turn. There may be a queue, but the fear that some rent officers may be rather overburdened is no reason to arbitrarily put off for a tremendously long time the cases where a rent increase is justified.
Alternatively, there is Amendment No. 169, which deals with a problem which the Government have not attempted to tackle. I refer to those who are almost by definition now too poor to be able to afford to pay their full rates. If they are too poor to pay their full rates, are they not equally too poor to afford rent increases? Is there not a case for differentiating between those who are in full employment earning substantial wages and able to pay a reasonable rent and those who have already been insulated and are known to be the hard cases? The Government, as usual, decide that the way to tackle the problem is to make provision for everybody and this will take care of the hard cases. Surely it is better to deal with the hard cases as a special issue and to treat them in a different way.
Amendment No. 169 provides for postponement in those cases only until July 1970. No doubt the Minister will say that they should not be asked to pay. But we must remember that the rent increase is phased over a period of five years after that. There will be a much more beneficial Government during those five years and their difficulties will be taken care of in a different way. I am not worried about that. But I am worried about the attitude of this Government in trying to ensure that nobody gets hurt. In doing so, they forget what damage has already been done to the whole system of rented housing because of inadequate rents.
The Government have gently grasped the nettle; they have lightly touched it.


They must be much firmer. I hope, therefore, they will accept Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 and will then accept the principle of Amendment No. 169, that those are the people who need special help.

Mr. Lubbock: Mr. Lubbock rose—

Mr. Maddan: Mr. Maddan rose—

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we still have a lot of work ahead of us. Mr. Lubbock.

Mr. Lubbock: The inadequacy of the statistics available on the number of controlled tenancies, and the numbers to which this Clause will apply, is becoming quite a scandal. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary and I have corresponded about this matter for a number of years, indeed, since before the Rent Act of 1965 was considered in Committee. There has been a gradual improvement in the situation, but it has been at such a slow rate that we do not know where we are when we come to discuss matters such as are contained in the Amendment.
We do not know how many controlled tenancies are likely to be affected by the Amendment, the number of houses which are capable of improvement, or which have already been improved, and how much hardship there may be, either on the side of the landlords or the side of the tenants. Until one has the answers to those questions, it is difficult to ask the House to evaluate a suggestion such as has been made by the hon. Gentleman.
But one thing that we can say from the figures available is that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in claiming that the attitude of Governments has any effect on the number of privately-rented houses, whether they are controlled or regulated. If one looks at the figures since 1957—and I happen to have them here—one sees that in mid-1957 there were 3·89 million controlled tenancies. In mid-1960 that figure was down to 2·93 million. By the end of 1964 it was 1·87 million, and by the end of 1967—this is a provisional figure—it was 1·55 million.
If one looks at the rate of the decline of these controlled tenancies, and also at the total of privately-rented dwellings in England, one sees that it has been slightly less under the Labour Government since 1964 than it was in the four years of

Tory Government immediately prior to that. I am not making any political point but merely drawing the attention of the House to a fact. I happen to believe that the private landlord is a dying race, and whether we are speaking of controlled tenancies as in the Amendment, or of privately-rented dwellings as a whole, there is not much scope any more, simply because of the arithmetic which makes it impossible for a private house to be let at a rent which is anything like comparable with that applicable to a local authority dwelling.
Although these are palliatives and we can ensure by such means as are provided in the Clause transfer from control to regulation over a period of years that some people remain in the privately-rented market who would disappear as soon as they got vacant possession and sell for owner occupation, I think the hon. Gentleman and the Tory Party should realise that all we can do is marginally to arrest the rate of decline and the transfer of these properties from rental into owner occupation. But the Government are seriously to blame in not having taken steps to provide the House with figures so that we could evaluate suggestions like this in a sensible manner instead of having to discuss the hon. Gentleman's proposals and many others completely in the dark.

Mr. Maddan: Mr. Speaker, you will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) into the whole policy of housing provision, except to say that the reason why privately-rented accommodation is disappearing is that over many decades, and indeed generations, there has been a failure to provide the landlord with a decent return. It is no good following a policy which will result in every privately-tenanted accommodation becoming owner-occupied. Many people want and have to live in such accommodation. We are dealing with properties for which the landlord, without the Bill's help, has done everything to bring it up to the standard which the Bill envisages. Therefore, we are dispensing a kind of looking-glass justice. The better the landlord the worse his treatment. This will not encourage landlords, so the remarks of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) are relevant, although not in the way that he envisaged.
It is a topsy-turvy world in which we are presented with a Clause which prevents the good landlord who has done the work at his own expense, or much more than his own expense, getting the benefit of increased rent which will be applied earlier to landlords who have not done that and who subsequently take advantage of the Bill.
This sort of anomaly is not appreciated by the tenants. There are tenants who feel uncomfortable about the results of present legislation. A letter which I received earlier this year from 13 tenants on the National Coal Board estate in Worksop ends:
Let us have everybody paying the same rents, not one half paying twice as much as the other for the same thing.
It is exactly this which tenants feel uncomfortable about and which the right hon. Gentleman will perpetuate in this Clause. Therefore, despite electoral considerations, which I think are misplaced, I hope that he will accept the Amendments.

Mr. Greenwood: Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that I must ask the House to reject this mischievous Amendment. It relates, of course, to the houses which are in the required state. We have introduced a staging of the move from control to regulation to do three things—first, to avoid clogging of the machine, so that the work of the rent officers came to a standstill; second, to enable more planned and economic use of the highly qualified manpower which is required; and, third, to protect the tenants.
I am a little surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite are now suggesting that conversion into rent regulation in the already qualified cases will be postponed for only six months from the commencement of the Bill, instead of to 1971 or 1972. That would be harsh on the tenants, it would be unrealistic and it would damage the Bill's main purpose.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) mentioned the lack or adequacy of the available statistics. I have a copy of the Answer which my hon. Friend gave him on 7th February. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him into this complicated subject, which does not affect the Amendment all that much. But it ill became the hon. Member for

Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) to rebuke us with not knowing how busy the rent officers will be.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, who made our blood run cold in Committee by describing the lack of activity of the rent officers, discovered that he had been dealing with the decisions of rent committees and had assumed that they were the decisions of rent officers. I had hoped that, after that unfortunate misadventure, the hon. Gentleman would have learned something of the work that rent officers are doing.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Allason: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I spoke on the basis of Answers that I had received to a series of Questions. What I said was not denied through two hours of debate. It was only when the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) suggested that the figures seemed strange and after I had tabled further elucidating Questions that the facts were made clear. Thus, the error was on both sides.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Committee debate is over.

Mr. Greenwood: I appreciate the ample apology of the hon. Gentleman.
The estimated number of cases which come within the required state category would be about 200,000, and it is utterly unrealistic to suggest that they should come in one batch to the rent officers at the end of six months, following the commencement of the Bill.

Mr. Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to an estimated 200,000 cases. On what basis is that figure arrived at, considering that the most recent figures in his Department for the whole of the controlled sector relate to December, 1967? He does not have the figures for December, 1968, although I was promised them some time ago.

Mr. Greenwood: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not prolong the debate by going into that issue. We are working to a quite tight time-table. Perhaps at some stage we could have a personal discussion about it.
Assuming that the figure is 200,000—that estimate is based on the best advice available to us—it is unrealistic to suppose that they could all go to the rent officers at the same time. The basic consideration in all this is that the main


purpose of the Bill is to secure that further improvements shall be made. That must be the prime aim of the Bill. We are trying to ensure that the new improvement work is not held up because the rents officer machinery is clogged as a result of the required state cases going straight to them six months after the Bill becomes law, so holding up their work at a critical moment.
The House must decide whether it is best to get the service expanding under a gradual increase of work, and then have bunches of cases, or let all the cases come in within a few months of the start. We believe that the first course is the better. The Oppositon believe that the second course is preferable. The House must decide.
We do not want an unplanned expansion of the rent officer service. It is characteristic of hon. Gentlemen opposite that at one moment they urge us to cut down the number of bureaucrats and, at the next moment, urge us to increase the number of public servants. They cannot have it both ways and I do not believe that the House would want to do that.

Mr. Peter Walker: As a positive suggestion, following the right hon. Gentleman's comments about bureaucrats, the Government might get rid of the Land Commission and appoint more rent officers.
The right hon. Gentleman used the word "mischievous" in describing the Amendment. His attitude to the problem we are discussing is curious. He appreciates that a problem exists, but he does not have the guts to tackle it swiftly. He is saying, "We are only interested in getting improvements done, but landlords who have acted properly and have maintained their properties, in spite of appallingly low rents, shall receive no benefit.
This is a very irresponsible attitude for the Minister to take, because, on his own figures, the likelihood is that some of these houses which have been maintained in good repair will fall into disrepair in coming years as there will be a long period of delay under this legislation.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the figures he gave when describing the landlords. He said that between 61 per cent.

and 78 per cent. of all landlords owned only one house and between 39 per cent. and 63 per cent. of those are old-age pensioners. The Minister estimates a figure of 200,000 houses, so about 60,000 homes belonging to old-age pensioners owning only one house will be restricted in this way and they will not receive their proper fair rent for a considerably delayed period.

This is a purely irresponsible attitude and one which will result in a decline in housing standards. The suggestions in this Amendment are reasonable and sensible. The Government have at last accepted that fair rents should be paid. They are saying that for a further period, in some cases up to seven years, a fair rent should not be paid to landlords and that those landlords shall be expected to subsidise their tenants irrespective of the means of those tenants. The Minister is saying that 60,000 old-age pensioners shall continue to subsidise tenants, who probably have far greater incomes than those landlords have to wait, some up to a period of seven years.

This is a thoroughly irresponsible policy and I shall urge my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide the House.

Mr. Greenwood: Before we have the Division, I should say that I wish I could have a royalty every time the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) quotes my Second Reading speech. I did not say in my remarks tonight that our only aim was to improve the houses. I said the prime purpose of the Bill was to secure that aim. What I meant was that it was not a prime purpose to alter the rent structure. We are doing something for a comparatively small section of people for whom the party opposite never—to use the hon. Member's words—had the guts or courage to do something during their period of office. At least they know now that, although there is some delay, there is something firm for them at the end of the period specified in the Bill.

Question put, That that Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 142.

Division No. 298.]
AYES
[9.37 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Awdry, Daniel
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton


Astor, John
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bell, Ronald


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Batsford, Brian
Black, Sir Cyril




Body, Richard
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hunt, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, Julian


Brewis, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Royle, Anthony


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Burden, F. A.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott, Nicholas


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kimball, Marcus
Sharples, Richard


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chataway, Christopher
Kitson, Timothy
Silvester, Frederick


Clark, Henry
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sinclair, Sir George


Clegg, Walter
Lane, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Cooke, Robert
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speed, Keith


Crowder, F. P.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Doughty, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Errington, Sir Eric
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Waddington, David


Eyre, Reginald
Murton, Oscar
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Fortescue, Tim
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walters, Dennis


Goodhew, Victor
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wiggin, A. W.


Grant, Anthony
Peel, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Percival, Ian
Worsley, Marcus


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pike, Miss Mervyn



Gurden, Harold
Prior, J. M. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heseltine, Michael
Pym, Francis
Mr. Jasper More and


Higgins, Terence L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin






NOES


Anderson, Donald
Harper, Joseph
Oram, Albert E.


Archer, Peter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orbach, Maurice


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hattersley, Roy
Orme, Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hazell, Bert
Oswald, Thomas


Beaney, Alan
Hilton, W. S.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hooley, Frank
Paget, R. T.


Bishop, E. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hunter, Adam
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Booth, Albert
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Park, Trevor


Brooks, Edwin
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-unon-Tyne, W.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pentland, Norman


Chapman, Donald
Judd, Frank
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, William (Rugby)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rees, Merlyn


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roebuck, Roy


Crawshaw, Richard
Lawson, George
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, E.


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lee, John (Reading)
Ryan, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Luard, Evan
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lubbock, Eric
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dobson, Ray
McBride, Neil
Skeffington, Arthur


Dunn, James A.
MacColl, James
Slater, Joseph


Dunnett, Jack
MacDermot, Niall
Small, William


Edelman, Maurice
Macdonald, A. H.
Symonds, J. B.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McGuire, Michael
Tinn, James


Ellis, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Urwin, T. W.


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Maclennan, Robert
Wallace, George


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Weitzman, David


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wellbeloved, James


Fernyhough, E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Whitaker, Ben


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marks, Kenneth
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilkins, W. A.


Foley, Maurice
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Forrester, John
Moonman, Eric
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Gardner, Tony
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Gregory, Arnold
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Murray, Albert
Mr. John McCann and


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Newens, Stan
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip

Clause 53

MODIFICATION OF RENT ACT 1968 IN RELATION TO TENANCIES CONVERTED UNDER THIS PART OF THIS ACT

Mr. Speaker: We come now to Amendment No. 79, with which I have suggested we take Amendment No. 80, in page 30, line 17, leave out paragraph (c).

Amendment No. 83, in page 30, line 29, leave out 'not'.

Amendment No. 85, in page 30, line 31, at end insert:
'until the date from which a fair rent, registered after completion of such improvements, is recoverable'.

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 79, in page 29, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
(1) Until the date from which a fair rent, registered in respect of a regulated tenancy resulting from the provisions of this part of this Act, is recoverable, sections 21(5) and 25(1) of the Rent Act, 1968 (effect of improvements on limit of rent before registration) and section 56 of that Act (increase of rent for improvements) shall remain in force in respect of a regulated tenancy or a controlled tenancy respectively effected by the said provisions.
There is provision for landlords' expenses on improvement to permit an increase in rent of 12½ per cent. This has been the custom for a number of years, and it will continue in the case where there is a period of postponement, that is, where improvements have been carried out before the Bill becomes law. We have just discussed the period of postponement, which we think is too long.
During that period a 12½ per cent. increase in rent will be permitted. Thereafter in these cases it forms the base value from which the rent increases are phased during the subsequent period of delay. But in the other cases, where the improvements are made after the Bill becomes law, under this system they will not attract the 12½ per cent. increase. But they will attract no period of postponement, and will move immediately to decontrol—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for the Chair to hear a debate against sustained conversations.

Mr. Allason: There will be no period of postponement, but there will still be

a period of delay of four years before the fair rent takes full effect.
Here we are concerned with what should be the base value. Is it right that it should be the previous controlled rent, or should it be the controlled rent plus the 12½ per cent. of landlord's costs, that is, the rent to which the landlord would be entitled if there were any period of postponement? If there were a period of postponement of one day, the base value would be the additional 12½ per cent. In the absence of the period of postponement, the matter is treated separately.
The effect of the Amendments is to bring both types of case into the same category so that they are all granted the 12½ per cent. increase in landlords' costs as the base value from which the rent will gradually rise to the fair rent.

Mr. MacColl: So far as a house is already in the required state, it can enjoy the benefit of any 12½ per cent. increases that might have occurred, but where it is not yet in the required state but comes into the required state it does not get the benefit of the 12½ per cent. Although the hon. Member made a good case, the disadvantage of the amendment is that it would frustrate the whole basis of the phasing. It would mean that phasing would operate only on a reduced amount of the increase because the 12½ per cent. would be unphased. The hon. Member made a point about bearing in mind the burden of some of these increases on the tenant. The provision in the Bill is what we intend, and we think that it is the right arrangement.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 54

RECOVERY OF RENT INCREASES DUE TO PROVISIONS OF THIS PART OF THIS ACT, ETC.

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 81, in page 30, leave out line 21.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we shall discuss Amendment No. 82, in page 30, line 25, leave out 'in such stages as are permitted under that Schedule' and insert:
'so far as such increase does not involve a payment of more than ten shillings a week in excess of the weekly rent recoverable for


the rental period within which the date three months prior to that payment fell'.
and Amendment No. 135, in page 53, line 28, leave out Schedule 3.

Mr. Allason: The House will be under no illusion that we welcome Schedule 3 to the Bill, which provides for a four year period of delay. Amendment No. 135 seeks to leave out Schedule 3, and the earlier Amendments deal with our method of avoiding the necessity to have this elaborate Schedule which imposes a long period of delay which we consider to be thoroughly excessive.
To take the case of a house at the lowest rateable value which has already been improved and is now in a good state of repair, it will not start to qualify for any increase in rent until first 1st January, 1972. There will then be under Schedule 3 a period of four years delay. It will only be on 1st January, 1976, that such a dwelling will be open to a fair rent. This is far too long a period and cannot be justified.
This Amendment has the merits of simplicity and brevity. It will permit rent increases of 10s. per week every three months until a fair rent level is reached. It accepts the principle of phasing rather than the situation of suddenly running from the low controlled rent which now exists to a fair rent—and I emphasise the word "fair". This is our proposal, instead of its being done in one gulp.
Before hon. Members opposite get excited and say "Aubrey Jones will get hopping mad about this", this is not based starting from a rent which is in any way economic or matched to modern times. It relates to a rent that is extremely small. This is indicated by the fact that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), who we regret is not with us tonight, is worried that rents will rise by up to seven times. This indicates that these rents we are discussing are one-seventh of what is fair.
As we have heard, a large number of landlords of this type of property are people of small means and that many of them have lower incomes than their tenants. There is no means test on the tenant. A wealthy family may occupy the house. Nevertheless, the Government seem determined to protect the in-

terests of the tenants, we think in a way which is unfair to the landlords This is a simple Amendment but I cannot say that I confidently expect the right hon. Gentleman to accept it. But I ask him at least to realise that his own proposals are thoroughly wrong.

Mr. Clegg: I feel the spirit stirring within me. I cannot let the moment go by without supporting the Amendment, because my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has raised an important point of principle at issue between the two sides of the House. There seem to be three views on this matter. First, there is the Government's view that there should be rent increases, but that they should be phased. Secondly, there is the Opposition's view, which is somewhat similar but which would have a shorter period of phasing. Lastly, there is the view of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), which is radical in the extreme in that he would rather have people living in poor conditions than have any rent increases at all. I do not think that the majority of hon. Members agree with his view.
In the end, this is a matter of judgment. One has to decide what is fair as between the parties. We do not want there to be very sudden increases in the scale for those with small incomes. On the other hand, it is essential that a fair rent should be paid at the earliest possible moment because, in the long term, this is better for both tenant and landlord. It is essential that money should flow into housing both from rents as well as from the Government, and I am anxious to see that this money coming back into housing gives us a springboard for further expansion in keeping these houses in good condition and helping to solve not only the problems of the homeless, but of saving the housing stock from going down in future.

Mr. Maddan: I hope that the Minister will take account of some of the realities which so far in these proceedings he seems to have ignored. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) said, this is a matter of judgment, so I do not want to imply that we on this side are for sweeping away any phasing altogether and suddenly, in one leap, going from the present controlled rents to fair rents, because, unfortunately, the unsatisfactory situation of the controlled rents has lasted


for so long that the leap in many cases would be very big.
When we consider the economic position of many of these tenants, we can form a judgment much more consonant with the proposal in the Amendment than with the proposals in the Bill. There is one point which is forgotten in the consideration of hon. Members opposite—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That the Proceedings on the Housing Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. McCann.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Maddan: Hon. Members opposite often seem to forget that in many of the households with controlled rents the income of the tenant is supplemented by other income of the household. I have some figures for 1964, and I hope that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will not think them out of date, as they are the latest Government figures which I have. A Government social survey pointed out that many tenants of controlled tenancies had low incomes, but added:
However, the low incomes of some of these heads of the household, particularly outside London, was likely to be supplemented by other household members".
When considering the possibility of meeting the increases involved in moving from controlled to regulated rents and the time necessary for such a move, we must bear in mind the total picture as revealed in the Government social survey. There is much more in it than I have quoted. I hope, therefore, that in determining his attitude the Minister will take into account the evidence available in his own Department which the Government have produced.

Mr. Greenwood: If I am saying 'No" to hon. Members opposite it is not that I do not appreciate their speeches. Indeed, I particularly appreciated the speech of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and especially his accusation that the Government seemed determined to protect the interests of the tenants. That was a comment which should be given wide publicity—as

no doubt will be the case from time to time.
Throughout the discussion of the Bill we have tried to strike a balance between the landlords and the tenants. It has not been easy. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) said that there were three points of view in the House. I suggest that there is the wrong point of view of the Opposition, there is the wrong point of view of some of my hon. Friends and there is the right view of the Treasury Bench. We have tried to strike a fair balance.
The Opposition seek to drop the phasing scheme which we introduced in Schedule 3 on consideration of the many points of view put to us after the White Paper was published. Instead of our phasing scheme the Opposition apparently want to provide for increases of no more than 10s. a week at three-monthly intervals until the fair rent is reached. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) said that he was not opposed to phasing, but one of the Amendments seeks to delete Schedule 3, which is the whole basis of the present programme.

Mr. Maddan: But the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is also an Amendment to Clause 54 which provides an alternative.

Mr. Greenwood: Indeed, and a most interesting alternative it is, which I am sure a large number of tenants will note with interest if not with appreciation.
The scheme which we put forward was intended to strike a reasonable balance. I do not believe that steeper increases than those which we propose could be justified. Working it out under the Amendments, including that to which the hon. Member for Hove referred, it seems that the rent a year after the registration of a fair rent could be £2 a week higher than before registration. That is much too harsh; it is much too steep. It conflicts with the whole basis of the prices and incomes policy, and I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Minister reflected that his constantly saying "No" did not in any way take note of speeches. If he did take note of the speeches, he could not possibly keep saying "No", particularly if he took note of his own speeches, which I do not ask him to do


too frequently. That is certainly so of the speech for which he would like to be paid royalties for the number of times I have quoted it. I shall quote it again, because it was the first time that a Socialist Minister, speaking at the Dispatch Box, recognised the problem, and he was very unpopular with some of his hon. Friends below the Gangway for doing so.
It was the first time that a Socialist Minister laid to rest the bogey that all landlords are nasty, wicked capitalists exploiting the poor. He told the public that perhaps 80 per cent. of landlords owned only one house and that perhaps 60 per cent. were old-age pensioners. This was an important fact and an historic occasion, and I shall repeat my quotations and again pay tribute to the Minister at frequent intervals for the manner in which he made that speech.
But having come to that conclusion, having had it dawn on him at least, he was made to stop doing anything about it by all the pressures from behind him. He said earlier that these changes had not taken place during a Conservative Administration, but his own phasing of the rent increases will mean that they will all take place during the next Conservative Administration, and we fully understand why.

Mr. Greenwood: They are much too urgently required for that.

Mr. Walker: Nowhere near as urgently required as the next Conservative Administration.

There will be a long delay before the increases are fully implemented. The Minister said that he was worried about steep increases, but we never hear the same worry when owner-occupiers are faced with steep rises in mortgage interest rates, when the Government put up Bank Rate by 1 per cent. and owner-occupiers have to struggle to pay enormous increases in—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is tempting himself to get out of order.

Mr. Walker: I would not dream of doing that, Mr. Speaker, I was merely pointing to the Government's different approach when they deal with the problems of other home occupiers.
The Government have completely failed to defend their case. The Minister quoted with pride what my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) said about the Government protecting the interests of the tenant. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that there are more tenants living in miserably depressing conditions as a result of all Governments of all complexions controlling rents at absurdly low levels over the years than because of any other factor. I congratulate him on making at least some shift in position, but he knows that absurd levels of rent control do not protect the tenants, but create appalling housing conditions for them. That is why we shall divide the House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 144.

Division No. 299.]
AYES
[10.9 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Doughty, Charles
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Astor, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kimball, Marcus


Awdry, Daniel
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Batsford, Brian
Errington, Sir Eric
Kitson, Timothy


Bell, Ronald
Eyre, Reginald
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Black, Sir Cyril
Fortescue, Tim
Lane, David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Body, Richard
Goodhew, Victor
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Grant, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gresham Cooke, R.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Brewis, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maddan, Martin


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gurden, Harold
More, Jasper


Bullus, Sir Eric
Heseltine, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Higgins, Terence L.
Murton, Oscar


Carlisle, Mark
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Chataway, Christopher
Holland, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Clark, Henry
Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, John
Peel, John


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Crowder, F. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Prior, J. M. L.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Jopling, Michael
Pym, Francis




Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Sinclair, Sir George
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Ridsdale, Julian
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Walters, Dennis


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Speed, Keith
Wiggin, A. W.


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Worsley, Marcus


Scott, Nicholas
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret



Sharples, Richard
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Silvester, Frederick
Waddington, David
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Hattersley, Roy
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip


Archer, Peter
Hazell, Bert
Oram, Albert E.


Armstrong, Ernest
Hilton, W. S.
Orbach, Maurice


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hooley, Frank
Orme, Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas


Beaney, Alan
Hunter, Adam
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bidwell, Sydney
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Paget, R. T.


Bishop, E. S.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Palmer, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Janner, Sir Barrett
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Booth, Albert
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Park, Trevor


Brooks, Edwin
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Cant, R. B.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carmichael, Neil
Judd, Frank
Pentland, Norman


Chapman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, William (Rugby)


Concannon, J. D.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rees, Merlyn


Craddock, George (Bradford S.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roebuck, Roy


Crawshaw, Richard
Lawson, George
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, E.


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Ryan, John


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lee, John (Reading)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Luard, Evan
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lubbock, Eric
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McBride, Neil
Skeffington, Arthur


Dobson, Ray
MacColl, James
Slater, Joseph


Dunnett, Jack
MacDermot, Niall
Small, William


Edelman, Maurice
Macdonald, A. H.
Snow, Julian


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McGuire, Michael
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Ellis, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Tinn, James


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wallace, George


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Weitzman, David


Fernyhough, E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wellbeloved, James


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marks, Kenneth
Whitaker, Ben


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Whitlock, William


Foley, Maurice
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilkins, W. A.


Forrester, John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Gardner, Tony
Moonman, Eric
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Gregory, Arnold
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Murray, Albert
Mr. John McCann and


Harper, Joseph
Newens, Stan
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Clause 55

MODIFICATION OF RENT ACT 1968 IN RELATION TO IMPROVEMENTS ASSISTED UNDER PART I OF THIS ACT.

Amendment made: No. 84, in page 30, line 31, leave out 'and not repaid'.—[Mr. MacColl.]

10.15 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 86, in page 30, line 32, leave out subsection (2).
If I may say so with the utmost delicacy and respect for hon. Members opposite, this Amendment is a redraft as a result of complaints about the style of the previous Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 56

CONSENT OF TENANT

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 87, in page 30, line 39, leave out subsection (1).
Subsection (1) requires that the consent of the tenant must be given after the issue of the certificate. The consent of the tenant is for works to be carried out to his dwelling which will result in the improvement which will allow his rent to move from control into regulated fair rent.
We anticipate that some tenants will object to their houses being improved by the landlord, not because they object to the improvements, but because they object to the resulting increase in rent. If the tenant initially agrees to the improvements he may give his consent in writing. The landlord is then put to considerable expense and must spend a great deal of time in arranging for the improvements to be made. He goes through the process of getting a provisional certificate of fair rent and, at that stage, the tenant changes his mind.
I suggest that that might be unfair to the landlord. One can see the Minister immediately bristling or perhaps shaking with joy at such a thought, but that is the situation. It can be extremely inconvenient for the landlord if, after the

tenant has freely agreed to the proposals, he is given a second chance of opting out long after the landlord has been put to considerable expense over the whole matter.
The effect of Amendment No. 87 is to leave out the requirement that the consent of the tenant must be given after the issue of the certificate. I do not think that the rest of subsection (1) is of any great significance. It is all contained later in the Clause.

Mr. Greenwood: I was not really bristling. It was simply that my political antennae were prominent when the hon. Gentleman was speaking. His proposal to leave out subsection (1) is not nearly as innocuous as he would have us believe. That subsection is one of the most important protections in the Bill for controlled tenants, and it is interesting that the Opposition should want to remove that protection.
The subsection ensures that where the landlord proposes to provide a controlled dwelling with any standard amenities that it lacks in order to have the tenancy converted into a regulated tenancy, any consent required from the tenant must be obtained or confirmed in writing after the issue of the certificate of fair rent. If the subsection were deleted, any consent given by the tenant before the issue of the certificate of fair rent would be sufficient. The tenant might well be persuaded in the circumstances to agree to the improvements without realising that they would lead to the conversion of the controlled tenancy to a regulated tenancy.
I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not wish to create that position, and that, on reflection, they will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman's political antennae have suddenly turned a practical and sensible Amendment into a political issue. It is nothing of the sort. It envisages a situation where a landlord has gone ahead with obtaining a certificate, not in secrecy, not under the counter, and not without the full knowledge of the tenant, since it has been stated in the application for the certificate of fair rent and the tenant will have known about it at that stage. The landlord having gone


to that trouble and expense and the tenant already having agreed to give facilities, the tenant is then given the chance to change his mind—
… unless … confirmed in writing after the issue of the certificate.
Surely one will not deal with improvements to property on the basis that the tenant is quite ignorant of what is to happen and is a complete ass. The tenant knows full well that, when an application of this sort is made, it will lead to a change from a controlled rent to a regulated rent. Consent having once been given, and the landlord having been allowed to rely on that consent and go to the expense and trouble of getting a certificate, it seems ridiculous then to give the tenant the right to retract from that.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ifor Davies: I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 31, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
(2) Where a dwelling which is subject to a statutory tenancy (whether a controlled or a regulated tenancy) does not satisfy the qualifying conditions and the works required for those conditions to be satisfied cannot be carried out without the consent of the tenant but the tenant is unwilling to give or confirm his consent, then, if the conditions specified in subsection (3) of this section are satisfied, the county court may, on the application of the landlord, make an order empowering him to enter and carry out the works.
(3) The said conditions are—

(a) that the works were specified in an application for a certificate of fair rent and the certificate has been issued; and
(b) that, if the statutory tenancy is a regulated tenancy, the works were also specified in an application for a grant under Part I of this Act and the application has been approved; and
(c) that the court is not precluded from making the order by section (Restriction on powers of court under section 56) of this Act.

It is always gratifying to respond favourably to effective speeches made in Committee. I do not see the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) in his place, but I should like to congratulate him on the effective speech that he made in Committee on the remarkable word "if". He criticised the use of the two "ifs" in subsection (2) of Clause 56 and my hon. Friend said that if the wording could be improved this would be done.
Perhaps I should say that we think that the present wording is quite clear and is perfectly good English. The subsection, however, has been remodelled to eliminate the supposed stylistic difficulty.
The Opposition also asked in Committee to have the Clause split into two separate provisions. But, as it deals generally with the consent of the tenant, the most appropriate arrangement is to keep all the provisions within one Clause. The whole recasting which has been done, however, may make the Clause as a whole clearer.
I should like to draw attention to the only change of substance, which is the introduction of subsection 3(c) which is consequential on new Clause 4, which the Minister has tabled to exempt low income tenants from the compulsory provisions in Clause 56(2) to (4). The new subsection simply provides for the court not to make an Order under Clause 56 where it is prevented from doing so under the new Clause.
Now that the hon. Member for Hove is in his place, I should like to congratulate him on a remarkably effective speech on a very small word, but it has produced a remarkable new Clause.

Mr. Maddan: Perhaps I might make a small speech on that small word. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. We are glad that our representations on that occasion fell on such fertile ground.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am grateful to the Government for what has been done. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will not get into any difficulties for taking such an interest in the English language.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 57

SUPPLEMENTAL

Mr. Ifor Davies: I beg to move Amendment No. 89, in page 31, line 39, leave out 'Schedules 2 and 3' and insert 'Schedule 2'.
In Committee, the Opposition argued very cogently that the scope of the power given by Clause 57 to modify Schedules 2 and 3 to the Bill should be clarified.
Clause 57 extends the power of modification in Section 50 of the Rent Act, 1968. Under that section modifications can only be made to provisions governing the procedure to be followed.
So far as Schedule 3 is concerned, there is only one small procedural provision which could be modified by regulations. This is in paragraph 12 which relates to the procedure as regards the application form and representations in cases where services are provided by the landlord.
Little would be lost if the modifying power did not extend to paragraph 12. To avoid any impression, which would be quite erroneous, that the phasing scheme could be modified, this Amendment deletes the reference in Clause 57 to Schedule 3.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 60

ORDERS APPLYING MANAGEMENT CODE

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 93, in page 32, line 27, at end insert—
(2) In subsection (4) of that section (right of appeal) for the words from 'within' to 'served' there shall be substituted the words 'within twenty-one days from the service or such longer period as the local authority may in writing allow'.
This Amendment gives effect to the Minister's undertaking in response to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) to look again at the time for appeal after a management order has been made.
Clause 60 provides that section 12(2) of the Housing Act 1961 shall cease to have effect. This relieves the local authority of the obligation to give twenty-one days notice of their intention to make such an order. When the Bill becomes law, local authorities will be able to make a management order without having previously taken formal action to warn the owner. The reason is that management orders are usually minimal requirements that any good landlord would have effected, and the twenty-one days is the period before effective action could be taken.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman quarrelled with that, but he suggested

that the time which an owner would have to appeal to the magistrates' court was not long enough, and he moved an Amendment to provide for a longer period.
My right hon. Friend considered this, but he said, as he said in connection with other parts of the Clause, that it was not proposed that the courts should be involved at this stage. The procedure in the Housing Act, 1961, Section 16—whereby the local authority can give a longer period—is the kind of power which would give the flexibility the hon. Gentleman wants. It is not likely to be refused, because, by the time the decision is reached, there has usually been a good deal of informal action to get the house brought up to this minimum standard.
The Amendment provides that there will be this further period allowable at the discretion of the local authority. In one sense this goes further than the hon. Gentleman thought, and I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Allason: I think that, once again, the vigilance of the Opposition has been justified. We are grateful to the Government for saying that we were right.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 61

MEANS OF ESCAPE FROM FIRE

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 94, in page 33, line 32, after 'section' insert—
'or accepting an undertaking under subsection (2) thereof'.
This is an important Amendment. There are two ways in which a part of a building in multiple occupation may be closed, either by a formal Order, or by an undertaking. If it is done by a formal Order, there are the appropriate arrangements for the fire authorities to be consulted, but the Bill as drafted does not provide for the fire authorities to be consulted before an undertaking not to use part of the premises has been reached—it may be the closing of an attic, or something of that kind.
This was not included originally because it was an informal arrangement, and it had not been thought necessary, but both the Government and the local


authorities take the view, which I am sure will be shared by the House, that anything that can be done to cut down the risk of fire, and particularly the unfortunate consequences of fire about which we read time and again in the upper storeys of premises, should be done.
The acceptance of the Amendment will mean that the fire authorities will be consulted whenever a portion of a house is to be closed, either by Order or by agreement. We propose to give very full publicity to this provision when the Bill becomes an Act.
I think that without being out of order I might in this connection draw attention to the provision in Clause 71, which places on local authorities a new duty to survey their areas. I hope that the Amendment will be considered in the light of the new powers in that Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 64

CONTROL ORDER FOLLOWED BY COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 96, in page 36, line 25, leave out from beginning to 'appeal' in line 27 and insert—
'Where a notice under the preceding subsection is served on the proprietor he may within twenty-one days of the service of the notice or such longer period as the local authority may in writing allow'.
I suggest that it might be convenient, at the same time, to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 97 and 98.
These Amendments give effect to the promise of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider some suggestions of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) about whether it was necessary to spell out that the dispossessed proprietor has the right of appeal when served with a notice under Clause 65 (5) or (8). The Government considered that subsections (6) and (8) would enable the proprietor to appeal, but as the point has been raised, it seemed easier to concede it by the Amendments 96 and 97, which confer the right in the usual form. This will make it clear beyond doubt.
The hon. Gentleman's Amendment in Committee also sought to extend the time.

It was not considered appropriate to do it in the way which he suggested, by reference to the court, but we have used the provision which has been effective in the past, of allowing the local authority further discretion about the time.

Mr. Allason: I think that we are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for meeting so fully the point which we made in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 97, in page 36, line 42, leave out from 'and' to 'appeal' in line 43 and insert—
'he may, within twenty-one days of the service of the notice or such longer period as the local authority may in writing allow'.

No. 98, in page 37, line 16, at end insert—
(10) Any notice served on any person under subsection (5) or subsection (8) of this section shall inform him of his right of appeal under this section.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 65

REGISTERS OF HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 99, in page 37, line 23, leave out 'prohibiting' and insert 'preventing'.
Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, Government Amendments Nos. 100, 101, 102, 105 and 106.
The effect of these Amendments is that, under any scheme under Section 22 of the Housing Act, 1961, the responsibility and the penalty is to be placed squarely on the person permitting the contravention to occur, while also ensuring that the safety of the persons living in the house is not put at risk. This matter was also argued fully and persuasively by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). We were not unsympathetic to his proposal in Committee, and these Amendments will achieve what he had in mind.

Mr. Peter Walker: We appreciate very much this long series of triumphs for my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). We only regret that, during these debates, more of the good, sound common sense spoken on


this side was not heeded by the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 100, in page 37, line 28, leave out from 'house' to end of line 33 and insert—
'and such provisions may prohibit persons from permitting others to take up residence in a house or part of a house but shall not prohibit any person from taking up or remaining in residence'.

No. 101, in page 37, line 37, leave out 'prohibit' and insert 'affect'.

No. 102, in page 37, line 40, leave out 'prohibit' and insert 'affect'.

No. 105, in page 38, line 46, leave out 'prohibits' and insert 'relates to'.

No. 106, in page 39, line 9, leave out 'prohibits' and insert 'relates to'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 103, in line 41, leave out from beginning to 'two' in line 44 and insert—
(a) the persons occupying the house form.
This is another triumph for the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), who in Committee moved an Amendment the principle of which I accepted. This is our attempt to put into proper form the spirit of his Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 104, in page 38, line 27, after 'notified' insert—
'or such longer period as the local authority may in writing allow'.
This, too, is the result of an Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead. My right hon. Friend said that while he did not think it right to involve the court in this issue—I will not go into this matter now; we discussed it thoroughly in Committee—he had in mind a provision along the lines of Section 17(1) of the 1961 Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 105, in line 46, leave out 'prohibits' and insert 'relates to'.

No. 106, in page 39, line 9, leave out 'prohibits' and insert 'relates to'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 69

PAYMENTS TO OWNER-OCCUPIERS AND OTHERS IN RESPECT OF UNFIT HOUSES PURCHASED OR DEMOLISHED.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 107, in page 41, line 11 leave out from 'circumstances' to end of line 37 and insert—
(2) The Minister may by order apply the said Schedule also to a person who has an interest in a house described in paragraph 1(1) of the said Schedule but who is not in occupation of that house at the relevant date and for that purpose may specify in the order a later date than 23rd April 1968.
The Bill gives market value compensation to the owner-occupier on the compulsory acquisition of his dwelling-house. It does not give the same compensation to the owner of a tenanted house. I will not go over the arguments adduced in Committee, where this matter was thoroughly debated. Suffice to say that my hon. Friends see no justice in refusing to the owner of tenanted property compensation for that property.
In both cases the acquiring authority is depriving a person of property. To distinguish between the person who happens to be in residence in the property at the time when the compulsory purchase order is made, or the property is in any form acquired, from the owner of it is a false distinction. Property is being taken away for the benefit of the community and full market value compensation should be paid.
The Parliamentary Secretary may use the same argument that he deployed in Committee: that this has not been done before by any Government and that the present Government are going further than any previous Government in giving full market value compensation to the owner-occupier. That is no argument for placing an injustice on the owner of tenanted property who has that property taken from him and who is entitled only to the site value plus, possibly, a well-maintained payment.
10.45 p.m.
This is a discouragement to owners to let their property. I should have thought it important at present to encourage owners of properties to let them. The tenanted population in privately let houses has been decreasing over the years. There must come a stage when this will affect the desirable mobility of


population in areas where people have to move by reason of their work, and so on. An owner who lets his property instead of selling it may find that it is subject to a compulsory purchase order and all that he can receive in return for the property taken from him is the site value, which cannot be less than—and is, therefore, usually equal to—the gross value. This for the sort of properties we are talking about is £30 or £40, plus well-maintained payment of about £150 in compensation for a property around the £800, £1,000, or £2,000 range. This leads to a sense of injustice and unfairness for the owner.
While the Government were tidying up one part of the law by giving full market compensation to the owner-occupier, we hoped that they would tidy up the other part in respect of tenanted property. The Government are considering the whole question of compulsory purchase. Maybe that consideration is not yet complete enough for definite introduction into this Bill of full market value compensation for the owner of tenanted property. This Amendment gives the Minister power to bring that into operation at some future date. This is a very reasonable compromise arising from our previous debates on the subject. We are not urging the Government to say that at once they will give market value compensation to the owner of tenanted property, but that when the deliberations on this matter have been completed they could use power under such an Amendment to bring that compensation justice into operation.

Mr. MacColl: As the hon. Member said, I will adopt the arguments he kindly put into my mouth. I add three to them. The first is that there is more here than merely the question of doing justice all round. There is a great difference in principle between the owner-occupier who has sunk his savings into a house which is his home where he lives, and the landlord who has either inherited or brought a house for someone else to live in, which is a commercial operation.
We are talking about unfit property. Anyone hearing the hon. Member would think that we were debating whether or not market value for acquisition should be paid in general terms.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that in those cases where market value can be given it may be £1,000 compared with £30 for the house next door which is in exactly the same condition. He knows that we are taking very large sums from owners under the present law.

Mr. MacColl: I do not want to get involved in a discussion on value. I am not sure how far in the illustration the hon. Member has made he is taking into account vacant possession. This is a case of a landlord with a tenant in occupation. I am not sure whether the figures the hon. Member quoted are correct. When a landlord is concerned, the important point is that there should be good maintenance of the property before there is a settlement. If there is to be a supplement for the acquisition of his property, it should be property which has been well maintained. It will be an incentive to him, because if he has neglected the property he does not get it. We are doubling the well-maintained payment.
The third point—I was surprised to hear it from the hon. Gentleman—was that we should use delegated legislation and, not only that, but delegated legislation subject to the negative Resolution procedure to make this very great change in the law of compensation. I do not think that the Chairman of the Committee on Statutory Instruments would take kindly to that.

Mr. Clegg: I do not apologise for taking up the time of the House at this late hour, because this question leaves much bitterness in the minds of those involved. The Parliamentary Secretary's arguments were fallacious. He drew a distinction between the position of the owner-occupier and that of the owner of a tenanted house. He said that the landlord's position was a commercial one. How can that be when the rent has been controlled to a point where it is uneconomic? He said that the owner-occupier had put his savings into buying his own home. We learn from the famous speech the Minister made on Second Reading that we are talking, in the main, about many people who put their life savings into property in the hope that it would supplement their pension on retirement. These people are just


as worthy of consideration as are owner-occupiers. The House is in danger of saying that there is justice for one section of people and injustice for another.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 108, in page 41, line 12, leave out 'paragraph 1 of'.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]

Mr. E. Rowlands: I beg to move Amendment No. 109, in page 41, line 20, leave out 'begun' and insert 'not completed'.
This is my last fling on the Bill. I hope that I, like hon. Members opposite can have one triumph. Whether or not my Amendments would achieve the purpose I intend, I have at least declared my intention, which is to give the compensation terms set out in the Bill to people who are not covered by the dateline 23rd April, 1968. Since Second Reading all my prophecies have come true. To give one graphic illustration, in my constituency, consequent upon a slum clearance order which was begun in June, 1967, having been confirmed two weeks ago, we have to tell the people covered by the order that they will be paid compensation which the Bill recognises to be grossly unjust. This is intolerable and will damage the tremendous improvement made by the Bill, which has done more for compensation to people in possession of slum property than any Measure introduced by any Government.
Do we wish to create a new set of hardship cases, in the shape of the people who are excluded? My right hon. Friend will say that we must draw the line somewhere, but we can draw a line that removes from the hardship cases many more householders. Those who have not yet been paid and are occupying their own homes could receive the new compensation terms.
Last Saturday, I saw a constituent who expects only £40 for her house, when she paid about £150 for the freehold two or three years ago. We recognise in the Bill that this sort of thing is grossly unfair and is intolerable injustice to individuals. Am I to tell her that although she has not been paid off and has not yet left the house, and although the Bill will possibly be law before she leaves it, she will still have to be paid the compensation now condemned by Parliament as being grossly unfair?
Some people will have a terrific sense of being done out of their just compensation if we do not pass an Amendment to provide for those cases of hardship that we can identify of those in their own homes who have not yet been paid compensation. They should receive the new terms of compensation in the Bill.
It is not difficult to do this, even if my Amendment may not be a satisfactory way of achieving it. The intention behind it is to bring in many more people who would otherwise suffer hardship as a result of these anomalies.

Mr. Clegg: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) on the way in which he moved his Amendment. What he said makes a great deal of sense.
I would underline the sense of bitterness that will remain with those who are still in their houses, but will move out with much less compensation than somebody across the road in almost exactly similar circumstances will receive. We heard in Committee how many people this would affect. The Government could well make this change in the Bill. There is a great feeling in the North as well as in Wales about this matter. The Government have been generous, and they have a chance here to be even more generous. When Parliament has a chance of taking away real bitterness over unequal treatment, why cannot we put the situation right, even at this last stage of the Bill? I do not know.

Mr. Maddan: When Sir William Teeling was retiring as the Member for Brighton, Pavilion, representations were made to me on behalf of two constituents there who have fallen between two stools in exactly the way suggested here. Because they became owner-occupiers at the wrong time they are being offered a trifling sum compared with what they would otherwise have.
Compulsory purchase exists because of public policy and the carrying out of development to meet a public need. Whenever this happens there are anxieties, fear and resistance—and often long-drawn-out proceedings as a result. Until we make our compensation practice fair, without all the anomalies, there will always be resistance, delay, dissatisfaction and public unease, and there can


be no justification for allowing this to continue.
I hope that the Government will listen to these pleas and will take the opportunity of the Bill to put the matter right.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I do not want to appear to be ducking the issue that was put so effectively to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands), but the particular subsection to which he has attached his Amendment is a narrow subsection indeed. There is a later Amendment, No. 142, and subsequent Amendments, which deal more directly with the principle that he has discussed. I feel that it would be more appropriate at that time to deal with the arguments he has put forward.
The particular subsection deals with matters such as the definition of "family" and closing orders which may qualify for special preferences, and a number of points in regard to the regulations. But the principle of the matter will, as I say, arise more properly on the later Amendment I have mentioned.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 70

REPAYMENT OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS MADE UNDER ACT OF 1957 OR THIS ACT

Mr. Lubbock: I beg to move Amendment No. 111, in page 42, line 10, at end insert—
'but where any such payment is made after the commencement of this Act, that payment shall be a charge on the property registered in favour of the local authority in the Land Charges Register and shall be set against any subsequent application for improvement grant by the person who is entitled to an interest in the house, where that person is not the same as the person to whom the payment was made'.
This Amendment would be of particular interest to my new hon. Friend who has just been elected for Birmingham, Ladywood—he was declared elected in a poll which represented a 33 per cent. swing to the Liberals, about 55 per cent. of the poll, and I would be the first to express in public my congratulations to him—since it deals with the problem of redevelopment, which has been of great importance in that constituency. We want to see everything possible done to facilitate redevelopment, but do not want

to see public money being wasted, as it seems to us is happening under one particular aspect of the Clause.
I wish to explain this matter quite briefly. If a demolition order, closing order, or clearance order is made, a payment is made to the occupier under Sections 30 or 60 of the Act of 1957, or of Schedule 2 of that Act or Schedule 5 of this Bill. After the commencement of the Bill, the order will be determined under the provisions of section 27(2) of the Act of 1957 on the local authority's being satisfied that the premises have been rendered fit for human habitation. It can happen that the local authority is paid compensation in the first place and then has paid a grant of £1,000 or up to £1,200 to render the house fit and is not able to set off the amount of the compensation originally paid against the £1,000 or £1,200 of ratepayers' or taxpayers' money.
The Clause provides that repayment of the compensation should only be made where the owner who received that compensation is still in possession at the time the improvement grant is made. But supposing a person buys a condemned house and then carries out work on it to make it fit with the aid of an improvement grant, then, under the Clause as it stands, the new owner will not be obliged to pay back one penny of the public money originally paid in compensation.
We are greatly indebted to the Town Clerk of Marple Urban District Council, who drew the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) to this potential abuse. He had some correspondence with the Ministry, following which he drew the problem to our attention. To quote one passage from his letter, he says:
A possible danger of the proposed changes in housing legislation is that the owner; occupier of the unfit property may accept compensation as an alternative to improving his property; there is nothing to prevent him then selling his property to a third party who is quite entitled to come forward with proposals for improvement with grant aid.
The local authority would then incur expenses on a conflicting basis, and he went on to describe how this could constitute a double payment.
We drew the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to this, and he stated in a letter dated 28th March:
It is true that an authority may be called upon to make a double payment by way of compensation and improvement grant, but in


the nature of things, such cases are likely to be rare and the amount involved in compensation would be quite small".
How does the hon. Gentleman know that the number of cases "would be quite small"? I do not know, also, what is meant by "in the nature of things", because there are plenty of "sharks" who would be very ready to acquire properties, have work done on them, and then obtain improvement grants and cause a serious drain on public funds.
The Minister should not write so recklessly of public funds. This reminds me of the housemaid's baby. It did not matter much because it was only a small one. It is an important matter that, if we are to improve properties, we have to ensure that public money is properly spent and that it does not go into the wrong pockets.
I am a little disappointed with his attitude I hope that he will make use of this simple Amendment, which we have put down in an attempt to prevent this abuse from taking place.

Mr. MacColl: If we find, after further consideration of the Bill in another place, that there is evidence of the sort of abuse to which the hon. Member refers, then we would look at it; but my present attitude is this. First, having for the whole of three days been bruised and battered through not having provided for the expenditure of enough money, it is a little disappointing to find that we are now scolded because, in a rather complicated Clause on a fairly narrow point, we are said to spend too much. My own attitude is that I do not think that this will be a very serious abuse.
The object of the Amendment is to ensure that public money is not spent both in compensation for taking a house out of occupation, and for assisting its return to a state suitable for occupation. As we are drawing narrow lines, and there is the case for sticking to a particular point where hardship is said to occur and the local authority is said to gain by not paying so much in compensation, I think we are illustrating the point about the roundabouts and the swings.
If what we propose here is wrong, then I think that my noble Friends elsewhere would see whether they could do anything.

Mr. Graham Page: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for drawing attention to this apparent defect in the Bill. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that if he found evidence of great abuse he would have this corrected in another place. Why "great abuse"? If there is any abuse it should be corrected. As the hon. Member for Orpington said, it is no excuse to say that there may be only a few cases and that it is only, perhaps, a little loss of public money. If any abuse can be proved over it, the Amendment should be made.
This is not a complicated provision. It is simple. All that the hon. Gentleman is asking is that there shall be knowledge to the country that there is this charge on the property merely by registering it as a land charge and then it is taken into account if someone comes along and asks for an improvement grant. It would be a simple procedure, with nothing complicated in it. Even if there are only one or two cases it is worth while putting a simple Amendment like this into the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 17

REVIEW OF HOUSING CONDITIONS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 112, in page 42, line 19 after second 'Act', insert—
'and in particular with a view to determining what action to take for the provision of land upon which dwellings may be built for those who may, as a result of the performance of the functions aforesaid, be displaced from residential accommodation or be unable to obtain suitable residential accommodation'.
We now come to part VI of the Bill, of which the first Clause is No. 71. The Clause is of considerable importance because it sets a duty on every local authority to carry out a review of the position in its own district. It states that an inspection of its district shall
… be made from time to time with a view to determining what action to take in the performance of their functions …
and then gives a list of these functions under various Acts and the Bill.
The most important thing to the public is to know whether those who may be put out of their homes by reason of the exercise of the functions of the local


authorities under these Measures will be properly provided for. From experience, I have found that, in many cases, local authorities do not think far enough ahead in the provision of housing for those who may be displaced by very sound schemes—schemes which everyone would applaud, but which will displace a number of people. Not until the compulsory purchase order is submitted to the Minister do some local authorities think about how they are to rehouse those who will be displaced—for example, by clearance. And, of course, a number may be displaced under the new procedure for a general improvement area.
It would be worth calling the attention of the local authorities to this aspect of their functions and pointing out that they should look ahead and think, in particular, when carrying out the inspection, who is to be displaced, whose homes are to be taken from them by any of the schemes they envisage for the future.
I have known occasions where the local authorities, having declared a clearance area and then submitted a clearance order to the Minister with an assurance that they will have sufficient houses for rehousing those displaced, have lingered over the implementation of the order, perhaps for years, so that, by the time they have got to the point of demolition, they have already put people into the houses they originally had set aside for those to be displaced when they assured the Minister that they had houses for rehabilitation.
We meet this sort of problem regularly in our constituencies—the length of the housing waiting lists, the terror of some people when they hear that the local authority is contemplating a great improvement in an area which may affect them The more that we can call attention to that and insist on local authorities looking ahead on that basis with a view to rehousing people who may lose their homes, the better.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: I thank the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for having moved the Amendment, because it gives me an opportunity of stressing the importance of this matter. But I hope to be able to prove to his satisfaction that the Amendment is un-

necessary. Already, a general duty is imposed on local authorities by section 91 of the Housing Act, 1957, which requires them to consider the need for further housing accommodation in their district. They are required to take into account information brought to their notice by surveys and inspections. Paragraph 8 of Part II of Schedule 7 to the Bill amends Section 91 so that for the future they will be required to take into account inspections carried out under this Clause.
It is, therefore, unnecessary to make the Amendment, but we shall be giving guidance to local authorities once the Bill is on the Statute Book. That will perhaps be the appropriate point to bring it to their attention.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. On that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 74

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE ADVANCES REPAYABLE ON MATURITY

Mr. Ifor Davies: I beg to move Amendment No. 114, in page 43, line 17, leave out 'of not more than twenty years'.
In the light of the earlier comments by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), I am tempted to move the Amendment in Welsh, as a Welsh-speaking Welshman, but as I have some good news for the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) and I want him to understand me, I had better stick to the English language, which I equally respect.
This Amendment will remove from Clause 74(4) the specific mention of a 20-year period as the maximum period at the end of which a standing loan made by a local authority should in normal circumstances be repaid by a borrower. Subsection (4) as drafted provides that a local authority is to fix a period not exceeding 20 years for repayment of the loan and may extend the period of a loan beyond that period if it thinks it appropriate to do so.
The hon. Member for Hove, who moved this Amendment in Standing Committee, suggested that since local


authorities were to be free to make loans for periods either shorter or longer than 20 years, there was little point in appearing to restrict local authorities to a 20-year period by mentioning that period in the subsection. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agreed that the arguments were finely balanced and undertook to consider whether advice might not be given more appropriately by circular.
It is now felt that it would be better if the reference to the 20-year period were omitted and advice given by circular. It is possible that in some cases local authorities might find their discretion inconveniently restricted by the Bill's mention of a 20-year maximum period. In a circular it will be possible to make it clear that 20 years is recommended only as a typical period for such a loan and also to give authorities some idea of the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for them to fix either a shorter or a longer period.

Mr. Maddan: We welcome not only the hon. Member's decision, but the felicitous way in which he has conveyed it to the House. I am rapidly becoming a believer in Welsh home rule.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 75

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT BY AGEEMENT WITH AND AT EXPENSE OF OWNER, ETC.

Mr. Ifor Davies: I beg to move Amendment No. 115, in page 44, line 24, leave out from first 'a' to second 'of' in line 25 and insert "term of years absolute".
This Amendment is exactly the same as that which was made in relation to the qualifying 'interest' in Clauses 2, 8 and 17, in Part I. These followed an undertaking given to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) by my hon. Friend in Standing Committee.
The Amendment is consequential on the earlier Amendments, in the sense that it is felt that the terms on which assistance with improvement work is available from a local authority under Clause 75 should be the same as the terms on which

improvement, standard and special grants are available under Part I.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 78

LONG TENANCIES AT A LOW RENT

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 116, in page 45, line 29, after 'maintenance', insert 'or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment I think that it would be convenient to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 117, 118. 119 and 121.

Mr. MacColl: This is something about which we all got angry in Committee, when we got into a complicated argument about what was a service and what was not a service. I went back over the debate and found it impossible to meet the points made except by removing "additional matter" altogether and that is what we propose. We are prepared to take out those words and thus make clear that payments for appropriate services are not part of rents for this purpose.

Mr. Peter Walker: Because of the manner in which the hon. Gentleman has moved this, it is, alas, impossible for me to continue the anger. We accept the Amendment.

Mr. Maddan: This Clause has been a matter of considerable importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has been agitating for a considerable period and at last it looks as if we are getting somewhere near a sensible solution. I am delighted that "additional matter" disappears. It is a matter of considerable concern to us. I am at a loss to understand the explanation we have been given for Amendment No. 121.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 117, in page 45, line 30, leave out 'or any additional matter'.

No. 118, in page 45, line 41, at end insert 'and'.

No. 119, in page 45, line 43, leave out from '1939' to end of line 5 on page 46,—[Mr. MacColl.]

Clause 81

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 121, in page 46, line 35, leave out '6(4) or 14(1)' and insert 'or 6(4)'.

No. 122, in page 46, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 40.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Clause 86

CITATION, CONSTRUCTION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 125, in page 48, line 29, leave out subsection (5) and insert:

(5) This Act, except section (power to increase subsidy for option mortgages) does not extend to Scotland.

(6) This Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.—[Mr. MacColl.]

New Schedule

AMOUNT OF PREMIUM PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION (OTHER LONG TENANCIES)

1. Where this Schedule applies to any tenancy and a premium was lawfully required and paid—

(a) on the grant of the tenancy; or
(b) on an assignment of the tenancy before 27th November 1967;

nothing in section 86 of the Rent Act 1968 shall prevent any person from requiring or receiving, on an assignment of the tenancy, such part of the premium or, if more than one, of the last of them as is determined in accordance with the following provisions of this Schedule as the permissible part (without prejudice, however, to his requiring or receiving a greater sum in a case where he may lawfully do so under Schedule 11 to that Act).

2. The permissible part shall be such part of the premium as bears to the whole thereof the same proportion as the period referable to that part bears to the period referable to the premium; and there shall be taken, as the period referable to the premium—

(a) if it was paid on the grant of the tenancy, the term for which it was granted; and
(b) if it was paid on an assignment of the tenancy, the residue of that term at the date of the assignment;

and, as the period referable to the permissible part, the residue of that term at the date of the assignment in connection with which that part may be required and received in pursuance of this Schedule.

3. Where the tenancy to which this Schedule applies was granted on the surrender of a previous tenancy and a premium has been lawfully required and paid on the grant or an assignment of the previous tenancy, the surrender value of the previous tenancy shall be treated, for the purposes of this Schedule, as a premium or, as the case may be, part of the premium, paid on the grant of the tenancy to which this Schedule applies.

4. For the purposes of paragraph 3 of this Schedule the surrender value of the previous tenancy shall be taken to be the amount which, had the previous tenancy been assigned instead of being surrendered and had this Schedule applied to it, would have been the amount that could have been required and received on the assignment in pursuance of this Schedule.

5. In determining for the purposes of this Schedule the amount which may be or could have been required and received on the assignment of a tenancy terminable before the end of the term for which it was granted, by notice to the tenant, that term shall be taken to be a term expiring at the earliest date on which such a notice given after the date of the assignment would have been capable of taking effect.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

STANDARD AMENITIES

Amendment made: No. 127, in page 51, line 1, leave out 'could not be' and insert 'cannot be or could not have been'.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Schedule 2

CERTIFICATES OF FAIR RENT AND REGISTRATION OF RENT FOR CONVERTED TENANCIES.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 128, in page 52 line 10, leave out 'and' and insert 'then, unless'.
This is an Amendment which deals with the case where the state of a dwelling after the completion of works is different from what it was expected to be in when the certificate of provisional approval was given. The local authority will specify the differences in the qualification certificate. The rent officer is precluded from registering a rent higher than that shown in the certificate of fair rent, but where the rent officer properly registered the certificate rent, even though the fair rent would be higher, the Rent Assessment Committee will confirm the rent officer's decision. This merely makes the position plain.

Mr. Peter Walker: May I suggest that we take together all the Amendments from No. 128 to No. 134? The rest are all consequential on the first.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is convenient to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 129, in page 52, line 11, after 'is', insert 'higher than'.

No. 130, in page 52, line 15, leave out 'not satisfied' and insert 'of opinion'.

No. 131, in page 52, line 16, after 'is', insert 'higher than'.

No. 132, in page 52, line 26, leave out from beginning to 'as' in line 29 and insert—
The rent officer shall consider, in accordance with the preceding paragraph, what rent ought to be registered, and—

(a) if, after considering it, he is of opinion that the rent specified in the certificate is not higher than a fair rent he shall register it; but
(b) if, after considering it, he is of opinion that the rent so specified is higher than a fair rent he shall determine a fair rent and register that rent.

No. 133, in page 53, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 and insert—

(a) if it appears to them that the rent registered by the rent officer has been rightly registered they shall confirm it;
(b) in any other case they shall designate as the rent for the dwelling-house either the rent specified in the certificate of fair rent or such lower rent as appears to them to be a fair rent, as the case may require;.

No. 134, in page 53, line 26, leave out 'determined' and insert 'designated'.—[Mr. MacColll.]

Schedule 3

RESTRICTION ON RENT INCREASES

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 136, in page 58, line 6, after 'Schedule', insert—
'as an amount fairly attributable to the provision of services'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are also to take Amendment No. 137.

Mr. MacColl: These Amendments are designed to make an application for a certificate of fair rent and registration of

a fair rent more understandable to both the landlord and the tenant, and they should therefore commend themselves to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 137, in page 58, line 7, after 'and', insert—
'any such amount and any amount to be so noted as an amount apportioned or to be apportioned to the services shall be included'.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 138, in page 58, line 11, at end insert—
13. Where a rent designated or determined by a rent assessment committee is registered in substitution for a rent determined by the rent officer, the preceding provisions of this Schedule shall have effect as if only the rent designated or determined by the rent assessment committee had been registered; but the date of registration shall be deemed for the purposes of this Schedule (but not for the purposes of section 22(3) of the Rent Act 1968) to be the date on which the rent determined by the rent officer was registered.
In Committee, I explained that the Government would later move an Amendment to deal with the position under the phasing scheme where a fair rent determined by a rent officer was superseded by another determined by the rent assessment committee. The Amendment is to meet that.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4

PART I OF SCHEDULE 2 TO THE HOUSING ACT 1957 AS IT HAS EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 67 OF THIS ACT.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 139, in page 59, leave out lines 17 to 29 and insert—

(a) if compensation is payable for any reason other than the compulsory purchase of the house, the date upon which the house was first vacated after the order giving rise to that compensation was made;
(b) if the house was purchased compulsorily, the date of service of the notice to treat under section 5 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 or the date of the payment of compensation into court under Schedule 2 of that Act (as the case may be);
(c) if the house was acquired by an authority by agreement at a time when they were authorised to acquire it compulsorily, the date of such agreement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take the following Amendments: No.


142, in page 61, line 26, leave out "the relevant date" and'.

No. 143, in page 61, line 29, leave, out 'the date when and'.

No. 144, in page 61, line 33, leave out 'the date when and'.

No. 145, in page 61, line 37, leave out 'the date when and'.

No. 146, in page 61, line 40, leave out 'the date when and'.

No. 147, in page 61, line 43, leave out 'the date when and'.

No. 148, in page 61, leave out lines 45 to 48 and insert—
'and "the relevant date" has the same meaning as in paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 4 of this Act'.

Mr. Graham Page: As frequently happens when we rolic along through a Schedule at this time of night making formal Amendments, we suddenly come to a vital Amendment which goes to the root of at least a major part of the Bill.
We have already discussed the principle embodied in the Amendments when we had a short debate on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands). He was concerned about where the line should be drawn in giving the new market value compensation to the owner occupier. He suggested a certain point at which the line could be drawn.
We suggest what we think is the practical date for drawing the line. That line is when the owner-occupier shall be entitled to market value compensation if something happened after a certain date, something in relation to the compulsory purchase of his property. The Government have chosen for that line a certain stage in the compulsory purchase procedure. We feel that that stage is wrong and that it will cause hardship and confusion.
The point in compulsory purchase procedure when the owner of a property feels that some irrevocable decision has been taken is when he is served with a notice to treat, and the law recognises that a notice to treat is some form of contract, perhaps a fictitious contract, but a contract in law between the acquiring authority and the owner.
As from the date of the service of a notice to treat, if the local authority changes its mind, it has to pay compensation for any expenses to which the owner has been put, and it is on the date of the service of the notice to treat that the property is valued for the purpose of compensation.
We propose that if the notice to treat was served after the date of the White Paper announcing to the public that it was the intention of the Government to give market value compensation to owner-occupiers whose property was taken from them, the owner of the property should have compensation on the new market value basis.
That cannot apply when a notice to treat has not been served, and so, in paragraphs (a) and (c), we have dealt with two other cases. Paragraph (a) provides that the date should be the date when the house is vacated. That is where compensation is payable for any reason other than for the compulsory purchase of the house. I need not go into details about how that could occur, but the date would be when the house was first vacated after the order giving rise to the compensation.
11.30 p.m.
In the other case where, although the acquiring authority may be acting under compulsory powers, the owner has been prepared to agree, without going through the elaborate procedure of a notice to treat and arguing out the value on that basis, the date should be the date of the agreement. In those three cases—if the house was first vacated after 23rd April, 1968; if the notice to treat was served after that date; or if the agreement was made after that date—then the owner should be entitled to market value compensation.
It is difficult to draw a line, and there is bound to be bitterness felt by those who are on one side or the other of the line, but we do not feel that the Government have given proper consideration to the point at which the line should be drawn. We must look at both sides of the picture; the local authority on the one side and the owner on the other.
The local authority has made its plans for compulsory purchase. It has entered into commitments, at some far off date perhaps, to carry the scheme through, and we should not lightly alter the


liabilities and responsibilites of the acquiring authority. In a normal compulsory purchase where a notice to treat is served, the acquiring authority can always withdraw from those commitments before serving the notice to treat, so it is not unfair to say that the local authority shall be bound from the date of the notice to treat. We should not be unfair to the local authority in using the date in Amendment No. 139.
We should be unjust to the owners of property if the date in the Bill were retained. It would be unfair on owners of adjoining houses which were subject to compulsory purchase if, because the local authority passed resolutions on different dates, the owner of one house received £30 or £40 whereas the owner of the other received £1,000 or £1,500. The date of the service of the paper which starts the proceedings for the bargaining on the price, and shows that the local authority is in earnest in acquiring the property, is a date which can be understood by the public.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give further consideration to the point, even at this stage. Our Amendment may not be correct in form, but I am sure that it is correct in spirit. If the form is not right, I hope that he will assure us that he accepts it in principle and will see that it gets into the Bill at a later stage.

Mr. Greenwood: The hour is late, so I hope that I shall be forgiven for not fighting again the battles which we had in Committee on retrospection. It is perhaps a lesson which all Ministers should learn—never to make anything retrospective, because they are always criticised for not having made it retrospective enough and get few thanks for making it restrospective at all.
The fact remains that, in the Bill, we are giving the most generous treatment ever afforded in respect of both well-maintained payments and compensation for owner-occupiers. It is against that background that one should view the criticisms that we have back-dated this to St. George's Day, 1968. I think that is the right date and that it was right to decide that the declaration of the clearance area must be the operative happening. It would be a great mistake to try and back-date it beyond that time. It would not remove the sort of dis-

parities between next-door neighbours. Whatever date is suggested, it will not get rid of the inconvenience and the sense of injustice to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
We have to take account of the cost which could be involved in this, especially in the case of owner-occupiers, for example, where it is not only a question of considering the fact that local authorities will have to face expenditure for which they could not have budgeted at the time, but that the Exchequer itself has an interest in the payments which local authorities will be making.
The amount is not inconsiderable. The extra cost of slum clearance as a result of the Bill's provisions is likely to work out, on the basis of present prices, at about £5 million or more in a full year. I am certain that that is a price well worth paying for the faster slum clearance which is expected to result once this sort of injustice to owner-occupiers has been removed. However, the further cost of the Opposition's Amendments could add up to more than £6 million, which would nearly all fall to be met immediately or in the very near future.
I know the Opposition's passionate desire to cut back public expenditure and, for that reason, I am sure that they will not wish to force the House into taking a decision which will place heavier burdens upon the Exchequer.

Mr. Graham Page: I did not quite understand whether the £6 million was in addition to the £5 million, or whether it would increase to £6 million.

Mr. Greenwood: In addition.

Mr. Page: It shows the measure of the justice which should be done to owners, in those circumstances.

Mr. Maddan: We are considering the last of the non-Government Amendments, and we have had a sad reply from the right hon. Gentleman. The logic of his case is not very strong, otherwise he would not have had to pray in aid the £6 million. Of course, £6 million is a considerable sum, but, if that is hard on the Treasury, considering the resources involved, the loss to owner-occupiers is just as bad, if not worse.
I will not weary the right hon. Gentleman with the details of the case to which


I alluded briefly when his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) raised a similar issue. There are many such cases, and I hope that he will think again before the Bill completes its passage through the other place.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 5

PAYMENTS TO OWNER-OCCUPIERS AND OTHERS IN RESPECT OF UNFIT HOUSES PURCHASED OR DEMOLISHED

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 150, in page 62, leave out line 20.
This Amendment would have the effect of deleting the reference to Schedule 2 to the Land Compensation Act, 1961. This reference is unnecessary because it is already automatically provided for in the 1961 Act as part of the normal compensation code, so its appearance might be misleading as well as being unnecessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 151, in page 62, line 33, at end insert—
(5) For the purposes of this Schedule a person who on the death of another became entitled to any interest of his shall be deemed to have been entitled to that interest as from the date of the death.
I should like to place on record that this Amendment in part owes its appearance to the eloquent speeches made in Committee by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) who was most anxious that members of a family, or someone having a close interest, would, when there was some change—perhaps by death—be able to take advantage of the grant position. The Amendment extends the reference, so that a widow, for example, who inherits from her husband, could be treated, for the purpose of obtaining a grant, as having a relative interest from the moment of the unfortunate decease of her husband. I think that this will be a welcome Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6

AMENDMENTS OF HOUSING ACT 1957, SCH.2, PART II

Amendment made: No. 152, in page 63, line 8, Schedule 6, leave out 'paragraph 1 of'.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Schedule 7

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 153, in page 64, line 3, Schedule 7, leave out 'paragraph 1 of'.

No. 154, in page 65, line 11, leave out paragraph 24.

No. 155, in page 65, line 14, leave out 'that Act' and insert 'the Housing Act 1964'.

No. 156, in page 65, line 38, leave out paragraph 30.

No. 157, in page 66, line 8, leave out 'that Act' and insert 'the Rent Act 1968'.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Schedule 8

SAVINGS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

No. 158, in page 66, line 41, leave out from beginning to 'in' in line 43 and insert—
'The repeal by this Act of section 16 of the Rent Act 1968 does not affect the operation of that section'.

No. 159, in page 67, line 1, leave out paragraph 6.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Schedule 9

REPEALS

No. 160, in page 68, line 49, column 3, at beginning insert 'Section 12(2)'.

No. 161, in page 69, line 11, column 3, at beginning insert 'Section 16'.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Title

Amendment proposed: No. 162, in line 18, leave out 'at a low rent' and insert—
'and modify section 9(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967; to amend section 28 of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Graham Page: This being the last Amendment, it does a little more than clarify. It is an Amendment to the Long Title, and I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to explain a little more why it is there.

Mr. Skeffington: The Amendment is consequent upon the new provisions in relation to long leases, which were not in the Bill on Second Reading. It is, therefore, necessary to tidy the matter up by referring to it in the Title.

Amendment agreed to.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should like to thank the House for the great help that it has given during the passage of the Bill, and it is a great privilege to be able to move the Third Reading.
We have had a number of extremely useful debates on the Bill. I thank hon. Gentlemen opposite, because I know that they have had to work under great difficulty for many days. I think that they have made many constructive suggestions which have improved the Bill. I am grateful, too, to my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and also to the draftsmen and the officials who have worked so hard to try to give effect to the wishes of the Committee, and then of the House.
I think that everyone will agree that the Bill has been improved in the course of its passage through the House, but it has not changed in its main features. It is doing the same things, but, I think, doing them more effectively, and perhaps more justly than was the case before. I do not want to outline the various changes which have been made in the course of the debates that we have had. They are important, but we have had an opportunity of discussing them, and I do not think that I need stress them on this occasion.
What I should really like to say is quite brief. First, I hope that when the Bill becomes an Act it will produce first-class improvement work, and not the rather second-class improvement work which is all that has been possible under the financial provisions which have existed so far. I think that the mistake which some of my hon. Friends have made is that they have been thinking still in terms of the kind of improve-

ments which were possible under the old provisions.
I hope that everyone who has an opportunity to do so will visit the little Urban District of Whitworth in Lancashire, where the Leavengreave scheme for turning old houses into new homes has been put through as a result of co-operation between the urban district and the Ministry of Housing.
Perhaps I could tell the House quite briefly what that scheme involves. I ask hon. Members to picture a site which was bounded by a disused railway on one side, and a polluted river on another. It had a derelict mill at one end, and a corporation refuse heap to add to the joys of the scene. It was a site which I think would have daunted the most adventurous and enterprising of pioneers.
In the middle of it were three rows of back-to-back houses. The council first tore down the middle row. It then took the two outer rows and knocked the houses through so that they ceased to be back-to-back, and became single houses going right through the block, well above Parker Morris standards. The council then sand-blasted the exteriors, and modernised the interiors. Where the middle row stood, there are now gardens, and trees, and seats. The whole scheme is an outstanding example of what will be possible within the financial framework envisaged by the Bill.
If my hon. Friends are still critical of some of the proposals in the Bill, I hope they will realise that that is the kind of improvement work that we want to see taking place in the future. I hope that Leavengreave will be repeated all over Britain in the years to come. The tenants of these houses at Whitworth had to face very substantial increases in their rents, but I did not find anybody who complained of that. Indeed, I think the general feeling of people is that they do not mind paying increased rents provided they feel that they are getting value for their money.
We have tried throughout our discussions, as I said earlier, to strike the right balance between justice to the landlord, and justice to the tenant. I do not suppose that we have succeeded in satisfying every possible demand in that respect; but I hope that the House will give me and my hon. Friends credit for


having tried to achieve that, sometimes under difficult circumstances.
The subject of residences for students was mentioned on several Amendments in Committee. I said at the time that there is no reason in law why these residences should not be provided by housing associations, as defined in the Housing Act of 1957, and by housing societies, as defined in the Housing Act, 1964. As the House will know from a recent answer by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, he is studying carefully the proposals sent to him for student co-operative dwellings. I am in close touch with him about these proposals.
In addition to the problems of undergraduates and single students generally, there can be special problems for married students, particularly married graduates, and their families. These can often be met by associations and societies catering for general housing need. I will consider carefully whether more can be done, but it would be misleading the House if I did not explain, as I so often have to do when considering new policy suggestions, that they have to be examined in the context of housing priorities and competing demands for resources.
I should like once again to thank the House for the help it has given, and to say with what pleasure it is that we shall speed the Bill on its way to another place.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: I thank the Minister for the kind things he has said about the way in which the Opposition have tried to make constructive improvements to the Bill. I said on Second Reading that our object was to make constructive suggestions and I am grateful to him and his colleagues for the way they have listened to, and often accepted, those suggestions and for the courteous replies we have received. We had a long Committee stage and three days on Report, which is long for any Bill, but they have been days well spent, and substantial changes have been made which will improve the Bill.
This is an important Measure for a number of reasons. The first is the Government's recognition of the need to allow reasonable rents to be paid for properly maintained and repaired properties. The Bill does not add anything

financially to the present housing programme, because the £40 million expenditure which is expected to be reached by 1972, when the Bill comes into operation, is taken from the existing budgets for general housing programmes. It is right to emphasise improvement and I hope that the publicity which the Government give to these facilities will be successful and considerable. What all hon. Members fear who hope that the Bill will be successful in its main purposes is that thousands who could take advantage of it will not do so because of lack of publicity. I hope that local authorities will do everything possible to bring these facilities to people's attention.
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned student housing, but I am disappointed that he has not dealt with this problem in the Bill. If he had accepted an Amendment of ours, greater progress would have been made and there would have been a considerable contribution to solving the housing problems around universities.
Finally, I express my appreciation to my hon. Friends who have worked with me in Committee and on Report. The Opposition has not quite the same facilities of assistance and research as the Government and we would all agree that my hon. Friends have put forward a whole string of Amendments which were well thought out and which have meant a considerable amount of work on their part. They have worked hard improving the Bill in the interests of the housing of the nation.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Brown: While I also wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon having introduced the Bill, I must, even at this stage, voice some fears which a number of my hon. Friends have about the whole subject with which the Measure is designed to deal.
The local authority in my constituency has taken note of the Bill and has urged it on its way, if that is the right phrase to use. It has already proposed that from next Monday it will cut back on the number of houses to be built so that it may construct 1,400 of the type of dwellings covered by the Bill. Along with this proposed cut back one must consider the people who will be displaced and the already enormous number of people who are waiting for accommodation.
It all adds up to the fact that my council, with which I have been in daily contact on this subject, is completely unable, unwilling and incompetent to re-house my constituents. The future looks black for the people of Shoreditch and Finsbury.
I naturally congratulate my right hon. Friend upon having introduced a Measure for which we were asking 10, 13 or more years ago. The then Government refused to recognise the seriousness of the problem. The Conservatives first introduced the 1954 Act, which was described as "a mouldy turnip". They then brought in the 1957 Act, and that led to the Milner Holland Report. They were aware of the facts before the Milner Holland Committee was set up—we had given them all the information they needed—but they merely delayed.
While this Bill is being introduced some time after the Labour Party has come to power, it was vital for it to be introduced, and I therefore congratulate my right hon. Friend on having the courage to deal with this problem. However, I fear that we are legislating in the face of local authorities which do not have experience of the problems which the Measure is designed to tackle. They are not even aware of what we were pressing 10 or more years ago.
I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to look carefully into the facts, for the borough councils of, for example, Hackney and Islington will implement the Bill not for the purposes about which my right hon. Friend has spoken but as a device to evade their responsibility for housing the people of their areas. I have grave fears on this score. I have forwarded to my right hon. Friend information about the establishment of what I believe to be spurious housing associations. In an intervention I spoke of Conservative councillors forming themselves into groups for this purpose. They

have no experience of this problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] There is no reason for hon. Gentlemen opposite to call me to order. We have debated at length the whole question of housing associations.
There is a piece of land in my constituency which was in the ownership of the council. There was a change of council and that land has been offered to a housing association, to which the council will give the money to purchase the land. The housing association will then build on it according to the council's authority, so to speak, and, when the construction is complete, the council will be given 100 per cent. nomination.
What is this sort of thing all about? Who will gain, apart from separate architects, quantity surveyors, housing managers and so on? Only today I made another attempt to find out the details of the Canonbury Housing Association. I have traced it to Porden Road, Brixton, but when one telephones that address one finds that it is a construction company. Somebody should delve further into this matter to discover just who these people are and what is involved.
I beg my right hon. Friend to make sure, certainly in my part of the world, that if approval is given to housing associations, the facts are checked. I trust that he will delve deeply into the devious attitudes which some councils are taking. Instead of giving priority to housing associations, we should ensure that local authorities tackle the real issues, such as the families with five, six and seven children living in two rooms. That is happening in my constituency now, and neither my local authority nor the G.L.C. seem able to do anything about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — STANHOPE ESTATE, ASHFORD (HEALTH SERVICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

12 midnight.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: On the face of it, this is a small local matter, but in reality it is rather more. It has led a Government Department—not the Department of the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to this debate—into going back on an undertaking to consider loan sanction. It exemplifies the extreme difficulties confronting an urban district council seeking expansion under the Town Development Act and trying to clothe its work with decent facilities. It also illustrates the complexity in securing medical facilities, a complexity which the Government have gone some way to recognise in their recent Green Paper.
It follows that the Department of Health and Social Security carries only part of the blame here. I shall resist the temptation of visiting the sins of other Departments on the Under-Secretary of that Department. The Ashford Urban District Council has spent about £3,000 in two years wrestling with the Department of Health and Social Security and Kent County Council to secure a surgery and clinic for the largest of the London housing estates, which have now been denied to it. The urban district council has been dished by Whitehall.
I will give a short summary of the rather tedious history of this story. In July, 1967 it was agreed at a meeting with Kent County Council to provide the surgery and clinic for this estate of about 5,000 people. On 2nd October, 1967, the Minister of Housing and Local Government wrote:
As promised at the meeting on 12th September, I am writing to say that the Department is prepared in principle to consider an application for loan sanction for the clinic and surgeries as described in the plans submitted.
The county council at the same time signified its approval. By August, 1968, the clerk was able to signal agreement on design of the clinic with the county council architect and agreement with the National Health Executive Council

and the doctors concerned on the design of the adjoining surgery. The cost was to be in the region of £23,000.
From that point there arose continuous difficulties. For the first time the hon. Gentleman's Department appeared on the scene with objections to the design of the surgery. It wanted a second surgery accommodated. It also informed the executive.
There is no guarantee that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will be able to agree to the expenditure required
which was a flat contradiction of the approval already received. At the same time it brought the clinic under fire so that the county medical officer was compelled to write to Ashford:
The county members have now considered the proposal, having regard to a letter received from the Ministry of Health in August, in which it was pointed out that the estimated cost is far in excess of the cost limit that would be allowed under the Local Authority Building Notes No. 1, Appendix F, which would be applied if the County Council were to erect the clinic in the usual way. In these circumstances, the sub-committee were unable to recommend acceptance of the estimate of £23,250 for the work.
However, this seems to have been a false alarm. On 12th December the county council decided that the estimate fell within the cost limits, but by the end of December it was raising fresh doubts arising from
current financial restrictions which cause every item of expenditure to be looked at very closely with a view to ensuring that no unnecessary items of expenditure are incurred.
In January of this year the clerk of the executive council made a personal pilgrimage to Ashford to discuss these difficulties. He expressed deep regret that the urban district council, having gone so far out of its way to provide medical facilities for which it was not directly responsible, should find so many obstacles in the way of progress. Underlying the difficulties, he stressed—I have no doubt correctly—were recent modifications in Government policy in respect of such services. He undertook to meet the Ministry and discuss the matter.
There followed an exchange of correspondence which I have here, which the hon. Gentleman has seen, and which I think might be politely described as word spinning, and I do not propose to spin it out here tonight. Delay meant that the estate had developed and tenants


were naturally finding their own medical advisers by this time. This, in turn, affected the financial arrangements proposed for the surgery.
At about this time the Department indicated to the county a further change in these rather ominous words:
In order to comply with the recommended space standards and produce an efficient viable unit it is considered the plans would need to be completely re-drawn. On these grounds alone this project is not one for which we would recommend the expenditure of public moneys nor, in our view, would the over-extensive accommodation merit full reimbursement under the scheme for direct payments for rent and rates.
One might be forgiven for regarding the terms of that letter as discouraging. If the Ashford Urban District Council had some grossly distasteful project in mind, it could hardly have expected more cold water to descend on it from a greater height. The clerk of the Council observed on 6th March, 1969, I think with some justice:
For the Department of Health to insist on viewing these proposals as a medical centre can only be with the deliberate intention on their part of frustrating the proposals, despite the assurance of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that loan sanction will be forthcoming.
In April, the Ministry of Housing weighed in and observed that, in view of the lapse of time and change of plan, its letter of October, 1967, was no longer effective.
That was the end of the road. I have not much to add to it by way of narrative. An exchange of not particularly helpful correspondence between myself and the noble Lady, the Minister of State ensued, but it is not wholly relevant. I did not find her arguments entirely convincing. I have tried to deal with the case on the basis of historical fact and not of polemics, although I confess to feeling a sense of disappointment, even disgust, at the effect of the action of the Ministries on this modest and well-intentioned plan.
The hon. Gentleman will, quite properly and fairly, answer all this detail for detail and he will acquit Housing or Health of sharp dealing. What he cannot dispute is that the withdrawal of an undertaking on loan sanction is very rare, fortunately, because in terms of mutual confidence between Whitehall and town hall it is very damaging.
What I am concerned about is the broad picture which emerges from this 18 months of totally abortive effort by a small town which is trying to provide facilities to implement Government policy—because overspill, for which the town is responsible, is Government policy. That is what is so depressing about it.
I happen to think that the Town Development Act, for which the Conservative Government were responsible, is a daft way to go about the decentralisation of London, but I will not enter into that. What I think such a town has a right to expect is a degree of co-operation and encouragement from the bigger Government Departments. This was a good idea for a big estate of some 1,300 houses and 5,000 people, even in detail. When every allowance is made for what I suspect happened, namely, a change of rules as we went along—no doubt for sound economic reasons—even in detail it was not far wide of the mark. Moreover, there was a degree of urgency behind it, because we have some local difficulties about hospital accommodation. We are not talking about trimmings—community, social or youth centres—funds for which are in short supply, but health facilities, which are vital, to use that overworked word correctly.
What I want to ram home, although the hon. Gentleman represents only one of the Departments involved, is that this overspill is agreed Government policy. The Government are keen enough to get the population moving out of London, but often prove less willing to provide what is needed if these large new centres of population are to become communities and not just brick and asphalt camps.
Behind this tragic muddle lies a failure of Government Departments, which is repeated over and over again, to comprehend the difficulties of small authorities trying to enlarge their towns by a third or a half to make this social contribution to the London problem. We cannot change the terms of the agreement with the Greater London Council, not without a lot of fuss, so it is unfair to change, as the Departments did, their terms for a small matter of this kind.
What these authorities desparately want is encouragement and help, not discouragement and hindrance. If I can get that across and get it on the record


tonight, the exercise may not be totally wasted.

12.12 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Julian Snow): I do not complain about the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has deployed his case. If I give a slightly different gloss in my account at times, it will be just as well to put it on the record.
I am well aware of the zeal with which the Ashford Urban District Council wishes to serve the residents of the Stanhope estate as best it can. I have received representations from other sources about this matter. They view things very much from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view in this context, but are not necessarily the right hon. Gentleman's political friends. The Stanhope estate caters for about 6,000 people. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it might have been prudent to try to achieve contemporaneous provision of these health facilities.
It might be of assistance if I explain at the outset that the urban district council is not a local health authority under the National Health Service Act, 1946, and that, therefore, my Department has no power to recommend the issue of loan sanction in respect of any expenditure which it might propose to incur on medical premises. The local health authority for Ashford is the Kent County Council. One of its duties under the 1946 Act is to provide a service for the care of expectant and nursing mothers and young children. In the discharge of this duty it sometimes erects its own purpose-built premises or clinics but more frequently leases accommodation from other public or private bodies. In recent years the amount of loan sanction which my Department has been able to make available for the provision of purpose-built clinics has been very limited.
In July, 1966, the urban district council asked the Ministry of Housing and Local Government whether, in principle, loan sanction would be available under housing powers for the provision of practice premises on the Stanhope estate for local doctors as part of their overall plans for the development of the area. The Ministry replied in August, 1966, that it had no objections to the proposals in principle.
In September, 1967, the urban district council made a further approach to the Ministry asking whether the scheme could be extended to cover the provision of a clinic as well. The urban district council had understood from the Kent County Council that there was no early prospect of my Department being able to entertain an application for loan sanction for a purpose-built clinic at Ashford. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government replied it was prepared in principle to consider an application for loan sanction at that time for the provision of a clinic and practice premises, and that it awaited formal application in the usual way. It was suggested to the urban district council that a firmer estimate of cost should be submitted for approval before tenders were invited.
In July, 1968, the urban district council forwarded plans to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, saying that it was now ready to go out to tender. The Ministry, following normal practice, sent the plans to my Department for advice.
Here I will go back for a moment to September, 1967. At that time the South East London and Kent Executive Council, which has the responsibility for organising the provision of general medical services in the area, wrote to local authorities, asking them to consider the need for medical services in any programme of expansion. The urban district council responded with commendable speed by writing to all general practitioners who might be interested in the Stanhope estate project. One doctor in each of two practices expressed interest but, later, it appears that one of these withdrew. At any rate, the plans submitted by the urban district council in July, 1968, catered for only one doctor.
My Department's examination of the plans for the doctors revealed that the provision for the practice premises was greatly in excess of the reasonable requirements for modern medical practice and that the layout from a medical point of view could be improved. In short, redesign would have provided in the same area two adequate medical suites. The hon. Gentleman said that we had said there must be two doctors. In the long run this may be necessary, but the real fact that came out of this was that the space that was proposed to be provided would or could have allowed for two suites.
This is an important point because executive councils can, subject to certain conditions, reimburse doctors for rent and rates of practice premises. Excessively large premises could lead to unnecessary expenditure of public money and, for the doctor himself, higher running costs. My Department was therefore unable to support the proposals for the practice premises in that form.
More recently, the doctor who had earlier withdrawn his interest in the project renewed his interest in practising from publicly-owned premises on the Stanhope estate. However, the estate was rapidly filling up and residents were registering with doctors close by. I take the point that because of these delays, for one reason or another, whatever the blame may be, the public were resorting to what medical practitioners they could find and where they could find them.
The executive council, after consulting the local medical committee—a body representing general practitioners in the area—concluded that the provision of practice premises on the Stanhope estate was no longer a viable proposition. It so informed the urban district council in February this year.
As far as the clinic is concerned, my Department on being advised of what was planned wrote to the county council asking for further information about the project, pointing out that the estimated cost was much above the figure which it would have been prepared to approve had the project been submitted by the county council and had the Department been able to accept it for inclusion in the capital building programme.
The Kent County Council replied that it had come to an arrangement with the urban district council under which the latter would design and build a clinic as part of the development of the Stanhope estate for use by the county council as the local health authority. The design and the cost of the building, as negotiated by the district council with its contractors, were to be subject to the county council's approval. If agreement on these points could be reached the county council had indicated its readiness to lease the premises at a rent to be negotiated between the two parties. It explained that by August, 1968, agreement on the design had been reached between the two

councils and that it had been informed that the estimated cost of the building was £23,250, including external works such as car parking but excluding the cost of land and professional fees. It added that in its view the project was little different from any other proposed leasing of accommodation for the provision of local health services.
There is, of course, a certain amount of truth in this. But my Department had to have regard to two other factors. First, the population to be served is relatively small and it seemed likely that the building as a clinic would not be fully used. Normally my Department does not consider the provision of purpose-built premises for clinic purposes is justified where the population to be served is less than 7,000. It is therefore doubtful whether the scheme could have been approved in principle had it been submitted by the Kent County Council and it is very unlikely that it could have been given any degree of priority.
Second, and perhaps more important, the project appeared to be unnecessarily expensive. To serve a population of up to 10,000 my Department would not expect a clinic built by a local health authority to cost much more than £18,500, excluding expenditure on any abnormal site works and the cost of the land and professional fees. This is some 25 per cent. less than the estimate of £23,250 put forward by the urban district council and suggests that there is scope for some economy in the council's scheme.
For these reasons, therefore, my Department felt unable to advise the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that the clinic scheme could, without modification, be accepted for loan sanction.
Broadly speaking, the position is this. It is generally agreed that it is in principle sensible that, as part of large schemes of new development there should be provision for community health services. It is in many cases desirable that this should take the form of a health centre; but I accept that in some circumstances this may not be possible. There is thus no dispute that the urban district council's proposals were in principle to be commended; and this was clearly implied in the reply which the Ministry of Housing and Local Government made to the council's original inquiries in 1966–7. The detailed proposals which


finally emerged in 1968 were, however, unacceptable, as I have related, and I am quite clear that, having regard to the scale of services to be provided, the size of the practice premises and the cost of the clinic were excessive. Thus the advice given by my Department to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that the detailed proposals were unacceptable as they stood was in my view right.
The mind of the ordinary member of the public must boggle at my account of the history of this matter, but its cause is that of protecting the taxpayer. I would, therefore, certainly not accept that this is an example of bureaucratic interference or of unreasonable decisions by the central Department. I fully understand the urban district council's feeling of frustration in not being able to provide what it honestly feels is needed on

the Stanhope estate. The right hon. Member will recall from the reply to his Question on 6th May that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is ready to join in any consideration of alternative arrangements for this project.
In view of this tortuous progress of events, I have arranged that officials of both the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and my Ministry will meet the Kent County Council as the local health authority and the Ashford Urban District Council to work out a satisfactory answer to this problem. The meeting will take place early next month. I do not pretend that there are not difficulties in the way but we for our part are ready to try to overcome them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Twelve o'clock.